Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Tax Credits

Adam Holloway: What proportion of appeals against overpayment of tax credits have been refused since April 2006; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: Over the period April 2006 to the end of January 2007, there have been around 303,000 disputed overpayments. Over the same period, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has written off 8,600.

Adam Holloway: I thank the Minister for that reply, but the National Audit Office report states that, during 2005:
	"The recovery of overpayments has caused hardship to some families and HMRC has struggled to manage disputes about recovery."
	That is causing huge distress and unmanageable levels of debt to dozens of already disadvantaged families in my constituency. It is obviously a mess. What will the Government do about it?

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman will know, in his constituency, some 7,700 families are benefiting from tax credits, including 12,500 children. He himself has written to me in the past six months on six cases to do with overpayments. I agree that those matters need to be settled, but I ask him to keep the matter in proportion and to recognise the fact that hundreds of thousands of families across his region, and millions across the country, are benefiting. The latest figures on take-up show that the very poorest—those on £10,000 or less a year—now have a take-up rate of 97 per cent.

Keith Vaz: Of course thousands of my constituents have benefited from the scheme and I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend has done on the matter, but the fact remains that, after a judgment has been made, many of my constituents are extremely anxious about having to repay immediately. What guidelines exist from her Department that will allow those in difficulties time to pay? Does she accept that there is a fundamental difference between a mistake in law and a mistake in fact?

Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that in his constituency, in the small number of cases—compared with the number of people who are benefiting—where people have to repay as a result of an overpayment, the Department offers time to pay and a graduated system of repayment, ranging from 10 per cent., 25 per cent. or 100 per cent of the sum required. In extreme circumstances of hardship, it will write off the overpayment. I am happy to send him details of that.

Roger Gale: Revenue and Customs bases its assessments on code of practice 26. Members who refer cases to the adjudicator find the adjudicator saying that the Revenue and Customs was right because it has adhered to code of practice 26. When they then refer the adjudicator's findings to the ombudsman, the ombudsman says that the adjudicator was right because she adhered to, as Revenue and Customs adhered to, code of practice 26. That code is set down by the Treasury. It is the Treasury's own guidelines. Fundamentally, it says, "We may have made a mistake, but you should have known we made a mistake so you are wrong." When will we get some justice?

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, COP 26 uses the reasonableness test—exactly the same test that has been applied within the tax system for a considerable time. It requires that the claimants ensure that the information that they have given is correct. When it is sent back to them on their award notice, they are expected to check that information and to confirm that it is correct. Where the error is made by the Department and it is clearly demonstrated that that is the case, the reasonableness test requires the overpayment to be written off.

David Taylor: Here we are on St. David's day, the final month of the first financial year in which major changes were made, particularly to income variations, with increases of 1,000 per cent.—the disregard is now £25,000. Can the Paymaster General assure the House that, as far as the figures that are available show at this stage, the level of overpayments will fall by at least a third, as was indicated when the changes were introduced quite some time ago?

Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the introduction of the changes that are now operational this year will have an impact on overpayments, as will the shortening of the period for renewal of tax credits, which was completed last year; it will be shortened again this year. I am sure that he would want to welcome the fact that, because of the tax credits, a family with two children do not start paying tax until they are earning £12,800 a year, or £420 a week. That has made an enormous contribution to reducing poverty, helping people into work and reducing the tax burden on the poorest families.

Robert Smith: The Paymaster General was asked what proportion of appeals against the overpayment of tax credits had been refused and she has not managed to answer that question yet. It would be helpful to the House if she did so, so we could see how well the system is working. She talks about the numbers being less and says that most people are benefiting, but individuals who are suffering a stressful experience deserve a better service. The Government must understand the system and not make mistakes, instead of individuals policing the Government to ensure that they get the system right.

Dawn Primarolo: The question of overpayments is linked to a number of factors—the increase in income in the year, an over-estimation of income by the claimant and provisional payments at the beginning of the payment year. Those are being addressed. I thought that it was helpful of me to tell the House that 303,000 overpayments were disputed, 8,600 of which were written off.

Mark Francois: The House should note that, yet again, the Chancellor declines to defend at the Dispatch Box his over-complicated tax credit system. If everything is going so well with tax credits, will the Paymaster General tell me why almost 100 Labour Back Benchers signed an early-day motion protesting at the current method of adjudicating overpayments? Is not this over-complicated clunking mess crying out for wholesale reform?

Dawn Primarolo: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman explaining to the 6,300 families in his constituency, including 10,700 children, why he wants to take tax credits away from them. I also look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman explain how he will ensure that children are lifted out of poverty and people helped into work by making work pay, and how the tax burden on the lowest income will be reduced by tax credits. The hon. Gentleman wants to dodge those questions and instead try to complain about issues that are being addressed.

G7 Finance Ministers

Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on the priorities identified by his Department for the forthcoming G7 meeting of Finance Ministers.

Meg Hillier: If he will make a statement on the discussions he had with G7 Finance Ministers on his education for all initiative for Africa.

Gordon Brown: Our international development priorities for the G7 are to support universal education for all children, including holding an international summit on the subject on 2 May, and to extend our new vaccination facility to malaria to prevent 1 million unnecessary deaths each year. Our domestic priorities as G7 members are to ensure low inflation and I can tell the House that we have today accepted the public sector pay review body reports to be implemented in two stages, and the armed forces in full, from 1 April. The overall awards come within the inflation target, at 1.9 per cent., demonstrating our total determination to maintain discipline and stability and to continue with an 11th year of sustained economic growth.

Ann McKechin: I know that my right hon. Friend will try to ensure that G7 Finance Ministers live up to the promises they made in 2005 at Gleneagles on the issue of funding international development. Does he agree that the G8 leaders should be looking at a variety of new social protection programmes that are being used in the least-developed countries to provide child benefit and pensions, which in many cases are the key to the world's poorest people obtaining proper food and getting access to education and to proper health care?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a major lead in international development in Scotland and elsewhere. There has never been a year when international development payments by member Governments committed to overseas development have been higher but we must maintain that over the next few years. I agree that we have to deal with issues of child labour and child protection and that we have to build capacity in health care systems. Over the next two months, our two priorities at the G8 will be, first, to move forward with our plan for school education so that 80 million children who do not go to school get the chance to do so and, secondly, to build on what we have achieved by creating vaccination facilities to prevent, first, pneumoconiosis, and then tuberculosis, diphtheria and, in future, malaria. We are prepared to make substantial investments as a Government—with, I believe, the support of the whole House—to ensure that we can eradicate some of the worst diseases in the world.

Meg Hillier: My right hon. Friend mentioned the 80 million children who are currently not receiving primary education. I am sure that he is aware that around half of those are in war-torn states. If we do not get those children into education, we have no hope of reaching the millennium development goal. Will he support the work of Save the Children on this and will he try to make sure that this is on the agenda at the education for all donor conference on 2 May?

Gordon Brown: I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. There are about 40 million children in conflict zones or zones where failed states are unable to deliver the capacity to create education, far less train teachers, build schools and provide educational facilities for the future. We are discussing the idea that, behind frontiers, an international organisation similar to the Red Cross and Médecins sans Frontières could offer education, with the protection of international law, to children in conflict zones. That new idea must be properly developed, but I believe that there will be international support for it, and I hope that there will be all-party support in this country. If we were able to ensure that children in failed states and in areas of conflict received education, we could meet the international development target that every child has primary education by 2015.

Peter Tapsell: At the Chancellor's meeting with the G7 Finance Ministers, will he advise that the International Monetary Fund, which is said to be close to insolvency, should, as recommended in the Andrew Crockett report dealing with the subject, sell part of its gold—its ultimate core of value—so that it can continue to pay its staff wages? If not, what will he recommend?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for that question because it allows me to say that the International Monetary Fund is not going bankrupt, and that its role is changing from conflict resolution to the prevention of crises. I believe that, given that new role to perform, the IMF will need less money to do its job. Its emphasis will be on publicising, transparency, surveillance and making sure that the world knows the state of individual economies and of individual continents. In future, it will be engaged in fewer of the large lending operations in which it used to be involved. However, as chairman of the IMF committee, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, far from being bankrupt, the IMF is extending its role into new areas.

Mark Field: Do not worry, Mr. Speaker, I will not be suggesting that we go back on to the gold standard any time soon.  [Interruption.] It is only a matter of time, of course.
	No one would deny that the Chancellor has a strong commitment to African matters. However, will he ensure that, at their meeting, the G7 Finance Ministers hold that commitment close to their hearts so that we can try to ensure that we have free and open trade at the earliest possible opportunity, particularly in relation to agricultural produce, which offers a way out of poverty for many African nations?

Gordon Brown: There is absolutely no doubt about what we could achieve this year with an international trade deal. It would make it possible for large numbers of people in Africa to trade with the rest of the world, and it would enable them to escape from poverty. That is why we are working with other countries, and why we put so much emphasis on achieving an international trade deal over the next few months. As the hon. Gentleman might know, trade talks have started again on a formal basis, after the informal discussions that took place at Davos, and I believe that if Europe and America can make some of the concessions that are necessary, Brazil, India and other countries, which also have concessions to make, will come on board. The hon. Gentleman must also recognise that to make it possible for countries in Africa to trade, they need support to build up capacity to trade; they need support in infrastructure, transport and telecommunications. That is why, as part of a trade deal, we are prepared to lead the way with other countries with an aid-for-trade package that would enable African countries in particular to build up their resources for the future.
	I am pleased, by the way, that the hon. Gentleman has announced that the Conservative party will not go back to the gold standard. That is about the only specific policy announcement that we have had from it.

Dennis Skinner: Can the Chancellor confirm that of all the G7 countries Britain comes out top on jobs, stable growth and Government debt? If we were a football team, we would have done the treble nine years in a row.

Gordon Brown: And it will be 10 years in a row.
	I should tell the House that, as my hon. Friend said, when we came to power in 1997, Britain was seventh out of the seven G7 countries in terms of per capita income. Japan, Germany, the United States, France, Italy and Canada were ahead of us, and we were No. 7. Last year, the gross domestic product per capita income figures were as follows: the United States, £22,000; the UK, £19,000; France, £17,000; Germany, £17,000; Japan, £17,000; and Italy, £15,000. Far from being at the bottom of the G7 league, we are now near the top, and that is due to the policies of stability and employment pursued by this Government. It is unfortunate to note that a party that has proposals to increase spending, while cutting taxes and borrowing, and a fiscal rule to cut spending by £18 billion, would lead us back into the old problems of unemployment, recession and public spending cuts.

Vincent Cable: Given that the Germans have asked the G7 Finance Ministers to look at the issue of highly leveraged private companies, what are the Chancellor's views on private equity? Does he share the enthusiasm of his Conservative shadow and the Prime Minister, or the serious reservations of the CBI, the TUC, his two declared leadership opponents and, I think, the Economic Secretary, who believe that there is a serious problem of lack of transparency, as well as a drain on Treasury funds in terms of tax relief?

Gordon Brown: I am sorry if the Liberal party is going down the road of doubting whether a whole category of business finance is capable of serving the nation. As is usual in many areas, there are companies that are short-termist and those that are long-termist. We want a British economy in which there is long-term investment in the future of our industry that will create jobs and opportunities for people. Where companies are too short-termist, we will speak out. Where private equity companies and others are operating in a long-termist way, we will congratulate them on what they do. The evidence is that private equity has created more jobs at a faster rate than some other institutional investments in the economy. It is about time that the Liberal party was prepared to have a balanced debate on this, as on other issues.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving education to 80 million young people is not the only priority for the G7? I agree that the Government have done much work in this area, but can he push the G7 to ensure that the money and resources get to the children, and do not bypass them and get into the hands of corrupt Governments and officials—that they reach bodies such as non-governmental organisations that deliver on the ground?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a long-term interest in education issues throughout the world, for that question. Britain's proposal—that individual countries sign education plans that will build capacity, particularly teacher training—will be monitored by the World Bank's fast-track education initiative and is the right way forward. I hosted a conference in Nigeria at which 20 African countries agreed to submit education plans. This is a major breakthrough, in that they are now proposing how they will spend their resources, as well as the international resources that are provided. We have support from a number of G7 Governments for the pledging conference that we will hold on 2 May. In advance of the G8 meeting in Germany, we can make very considerable progress, with a number of countries signing up to our initiative. However, our initiative alone—£1 billion a year for education—means that in the next few years, we alone will be educating 15 million additional children in some of the world's poorest countries. That is thanks to the international support that has been given to this education initiative.

George Osborne: One of the most important issues that the G7 Finance Ministers will be dealing with is of course climate change. Carbon emissions in Britain have risen in the past 10 years and continue to rise. We have discovered that this week, the Chancellor's Smith Institute trustee, Deborah Mattinson, told a private Labour meeting that there is public
	"dissatisfaction with the government's performance"
	on the environment. Why does he think that is?

Gordon Brown: We introduced the climate change levy, which the Opposition opposed. We extended the aggregates levy, which the Opposition opposed. We extended the landfill tax, which the Opposition opposed. Every time that we tried to deal with the problems of the car industry, the Opposition opposed us. If anybody was taking an objective view of who had done more for the environment, I do not think that they would come down in favour of the Conservative party.
	Of course, one reason why we can do better on the environment is co-operation within the European Union.  [Interruption.] Oh yes. That is why we are signing agreements with other European countries to reduce carbon emissions. The hon. Gentleman spoke at the Centre for European Reform yesterday. At the beginning of his speech, he said "I'm a pro-European", but within 12 minutes he said:
	"I would call myself a Eurosceptic."

George Osborne: Of course the European Union can do things to tackle climate change: it does not mean that we have to give up all our sovereignty to let it do them —[ Interruption. ] Now listen, I am asking the Chancellor about the views of Deborah Mattinson. I am surprised that he cannot agree, because she is his personal pollster and the event at which she was speaking was called "Brown's first 100 days" —[ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Ian Austin, I am always telling you to behave yourself, and I am telling you now.

George Osborne: And only newly promoted as well.
	Now look, that is not the only such event this week. What does the Chancellor say to the former Home Secretary, who served with him in the Cabinet, who said yesterday that thanks to the Chancellor, the Labour Government were sleepwalking to disaster? Does Mrs. Rochester agree?

Gordon Brown: I repeat what the shadow Chancellor says to every meeting that he addresses in the City:
	"The Labour party has become in the public's minds the party of economic competence. Establishing economic credibility allowed them to persuade the public that they then could deliver on their promises of social justice."
	He also talks about
	"Labour's success on macroeconomic policy".
	That is very different from the interview that I heard him give this morning. The Leader of the Opposition said that he had an absolute commitment to introducing a married couple's allowance, but the shadow Chancellor said on the radio this morning that he could say only that they were thinking about it. So in the Conservative party, Front Benchers make public spending commitments, Front Benchers say that they will cut taxes and Front Benchers say that they will cut borrowing and achieve stability. None of it ever adds up, as it never did in any previous election. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's policies, we would be back to where we were in 1992, when the Leader of the Opposition had to stand with the then Chancellor and pronounce about 15 per cent. interest rates, 3 million unemployed, public spending cuts and the worst economic record of any Government since the war.

Housing Market

Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of the operation of the housing market.

Stephen Timms: New house building reached 160,000 last year, the highest level since 1990. When I met Shelter and other housing organisations this week, they welcomed what they described as outstanding progress since 1997 on investment in existing social housing and in creating more homes for people on low income. But they also called for further progress in the comprehensive spending review and supported Kate Barker's conclusions that supply is not yet fully meeting Britain's long-term housing needs.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Despite Kate Barker's view, is the Minister aware that in Cornwall the housing stock has more than doubled in the last 40 years? It has grown faster than almost anywhere else in the country, but the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse. Indeed, in my constituency last year, five times as many properties were sold to second-home buyers as to first-time buyers. Does the Minister accept that simply heaping tens of thousands more homes into a supposedly homogenous and uniform market does not work in places such as Cornwall, and that much more sophisticated mechanisms are needed? Market equilibrium does not result in affordable homes for local people.

Stephen Timms: We certainly do need to be smart about how we take this issue forward. We need more homes, and we set the objective in the pre-Budget report in 2005 of increasing the number of net additions to 200,000 a year within 10 years. That is important. We also need help for first-time buyers, and that is why we raised the threshold for stamp duty. We also need to go further on social housing. By next year, we will have increased the number of new social homes by 50 per cent. over three years, from 20,000 up to 30,000 a year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that going further in that particular area, which will be important for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, will be a priority for the comprehensive spending review.

Jim Cousins: The number of people registered for rehousing in the city of Newcastle is five times as high as it was six years ago. Low-income families on tax credits—the very thing that we were discussing earlier—simply cannot afford either to rent or to buy. That affordability gap, rather than housing supply, is the central problem. People are being priced out of their neighbourhoods because they cannot afford to rent or to buy.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend will recognise that there is a link between the number of homes available and the price that people need to pay for them. I agree entirely that people in a number of parts of the UK face some very big and difficult problems in gaining access to the housing market. Further progress in that regard will be a priority in the comprehensive spending review, but it is also worth noting that total household-sector interest payments are currently 9 per cent. of disposable income, compared with 15 per cent. in 1990. That shows that some good progress has been made.

Maria Miller: I am sure that the Chief Secretary shares my concern about the problems that first-time buyers face in getting a foot on the housing ladder. In my constituency of Basingstoke, the difficulties are significant. Last year, just 36 per cent. of new loans—that is, one in three—were made to first-time buyers, a significant reduction from the 1990s. What assessment has he made of the other up-front charges in addition to stamp duty that first-time buyers have to pay before they can buy their first home? Those charges place an enormous barrier in the path of people who, like my constituents, are finding it very difficult to get a foot on the ladder.

Stephen Timms: We need to do more to address the challenges facing first-time buyers, and I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the increase in the stamp duty threshold, as that will be particularly useful and helpful. In addition, I remind her of the work that has been done on shared equity: we now expect 160,000 households to be helped into home ownership by 2010 through shared equity in various forms, and that is double the original estimate. We are making progress, although there is no doubt that more must be done. I am confident that, in the CSR, we will be able to announce steps that will help further.

Dawn Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in housing and social housing is important to helping people get on to the housing ladder? That is especially important in my constituency, where average earnings are around £20,000. What would be the effect on the social housing budget if overall public expenditure were to be reduced by the implementation of a third fiscal rule?

Stephen Timms: I am afraid that the effect would be catastrophic. Great progress in social housing has been achieved through the investment in the existing social housing stock about which Shelter and other organisations spoke to me earlier this week. Another factor has been the 50 per cent. increase over the past few years in the number of social houses being built. We need to maintain the investment and go further. I am confident that that will happen, but I am afraid that a third fiscal rule would take us very sharply backwards.

Childhood Well-being

Mark Harper: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the UK's macro-economic performance on childhood well-being.

Edward Balls: Since 1997, the Government's commitment to macro-economic stability, to providing work for those who can do it and to giving financial support to families has reduced the number of children in workless households by 440,000, and helped lift 700,000 children out of poverty.

Mark Harper: I am surprised that the Chancellor is not wearing a daffodil to show his sense of Britishness, given that today is St. David's day. Does the Economic Secretary share UNICEF's assessment that economic poverty alone is not the sole indicator of childhood well-being? What does he think needs to be done to tackle the broader social problems that affect childhood well-being in Britain today?

Edward Balls: I agree that having strong families and sound public services are part of making sure that children get the best possible start in life. However, macro-economic instability and rising poverty make it much harder to give children that. The number of children in poverty has fallen by 700,000 since 1997. That number rose by 500,000 in the 1980-81 recession, and by 1.1 million in the recession of 1990-92. With that sort of instability, it is no wonder that child poverty doubled in the period up to 1997.

Lyn Brown: Both the minimum wage and the tax credits system have made an enormous contribution to reducing poverty across the country, yet 41 per cent. of London's children remain in poverty. Does the Minister agree that London needs specific, comprehensive and complex cross-Government issues, measures—[Hon. Members: "Action."]—action to meet the 2020 child poverty target? [Hon. Members: "Reading."] Oh, you are pathetic. Will he meet me to discuss the matter and how the major regeneration initiatives in the east of the capital can help to reduce the number of children in poverty?  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not singling out any hon. Member—I know that it can be daunting sometimes to ask questions on the Floor of the House—but I urge hon. Members not to read questions. Just stand and speak and ask a supplementary; it is a lot easier, believe me.

Edward Balls: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend makes a serious point. The reality is that we have seen rising employment and falling child poverty in London, as across the rest of the country, but while London has benefited substantially, unemployment and child poverty in London are higher than in the rest of the country. It is campaigning work by her and other London MPs that can help to get child poverty rates down. One important way in which we can do that is by making sure that the Olympics bring genuine regeneration and job creation to constituencies such as West Ham. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to help take forward these issues.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister agree that good fiscal education in schools is essential for the future well-being of our children and the avoidance of personal debt? Will he undertake to discuss this with his Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Skills?

Edward Balls: Good physical education and good financial education are both important. [Hon. Members: "Fiscal".] Fiscal or physical? I am happy to answer the question whether the hon. Lady is talking about physical education, fiscal education or financial education. Whichever way, we have been improving the situation since 1997 from a low base. I am happy to talk to Ministers to ensure that we redouble our efforts.

Angela Eagle: Will my hon. Friend share with the House what the likely effect on childhood well-being would be of reintroducing the married tax allowances? It would take money away from poor children.

Edward Balls: That relates to a more general point, which is that taking us back to instability would be bad for child poverty. We heard today that the commitment to a transferable tax allowance is not a policy; it is a value. We are also told that a commitment to border police is not a policy; it is a value. Presumably, the commitment to the abolition of inheritance tax is also a value.

No. 11 Downing Street

Michael Fabricant: Which charities held events at No. 11 Downing Street during the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Timms: No. 11 Downing street is used for official meetings, engagements with external representatives and for charity events. Charities play a critical role in contributing to Government objectives. That is why the Government have backed them so strongly over the past 10 years. A list of the 67 charities that have used No. 11 since 1997 is on the Treasury website.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister confirm that one of the so-called charities is the Smith Institute, that it meets monthly there and that often the lights are burning deep into the hours of midnight and beyond as it ponders hard how to brighten up the image of the rather dour Chancellor? Does that not make the Smith Institute a little more of a think-tank and a little less of a charitable institution?

Stephen Timms: That, of course, is a matter for the Charity Commission. One of the 67 charities is indeed the Smith Institute, but Conservative Members voted last night against legislation extending the role of charities in work with offenders. I hope that they will not compound that mistake by giving the impression today that they oppose charity use of No. 11.

John Mann: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Therefore, I have made a complaint to the Charity Commission about the Policy Exchange reform—

Mr. Speaker: No; please don't.

Mark Hoban: Ministers are reluctant to answer questions about the Smith Institute. The Financial Secretary took 10 weeks to reply to a question about how many events the Smith Institute held at No. 11 Downing street in one year, and he still will not reveal how many events it has held there since 1997. Is it not time to drop the pretence and recognise that the Smith Institute is nothing more than a cover for the political activities of the Chancellor and his political allies?

Stephen Timms: No, I do not agree. The questions have been answered and, as I said, the status of the institute is a matter for the Charity Commission. As we have made clear, 10 years ago the Smith Institute said that it would like to use No. 11 Downing street on a monthly basis, and sometimes more frequently, but many other charities have used it as well, so I hope that the Conservatives recognise—

Mark Hoban: How many?

Stephen Timms: Sixty-seven charities are listed on the Treasury website. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would support the use of No. 11 Downing street in that way.

Employment (Warrington)

Helen Jones: What assessment he has made of the economic impact of likely changes of employment in Warrington over the next 10 years.

John Healey: Over the past 10 years, unemployment has been cut by almost half and employment is up by 16,000 in Warrington. For the future, continuing growth, stability and near-record employment mean that we remain fully committed to full employment opportunities for all those in Warrington and across the UK.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Now that we have moved from serious unemployment to full employment in Warrington, our next challenge is to produce more highly skilled, well paid jobs, particularly through development of the Omega project. Can my hon. Friend assure me that as that comes on stream we will continue the investment in training and further education that will ensure that people from the deprived areas of my constituency are able to take advantage of those jobs and improve their skills and prospects in the future?

John Healey: I can indeed, and I welcome the fact that phase 1 of the Omega project was given planning go-ahead just before Christmas. As a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, my hon. Friend knows that the huge investment over the past 10 years means that skills in the UK are improving—more than 1.4 million people have improved their basic skills and levels of qualification in the work force are increasing. However, she knows, too, that international challenges and competition and demand from employers mean that for the future our task will be even greater. I assure her that we accept the scale of the challenge set out by the Leitch report and Lord Leitch's approach for tackling it, and we are working on ways to implement his recommendations.

Julie Kirkbride: Are not the Government concerned that the recent childhood well-being report showed that 30 per cent. of young people—presumably in Warrington, as elsewhere—do not aspire to anything other than low-skilled jobs? Bearing in mind the fact that over the next few decades the UK economy is unlikely to generate as many low-skilled jobs as at present, is not the Financial Secretary concerned about the impact that that is likely to have on the economy in Warrington and elsewhere, including on the well-being of those young people as adults?

John Healey: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady missed the question about the childhood well-being report that was answered by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary a moment ago. However, she is right to note the strong requirement for a more skilled work force in the future. She is right, too—although she did not quite say this—that 70 per cent. of the work force in 2020 will already have left full-time education. She is also right that we need to do yet more for young people who are looking for vocational options, in particular for modern apprenticeships. The fact that the number of those on apprenticeships has almost trebled over the past 10 years is a good base on which to build and I hope she welcomes that.

Terrorist Assets

Greg Hands: What steps he has taken since 1 January to tighten controls on the movement of terrorist assets.

Edward Balls: The Government yesterday set before the House new measures to deal with terrorist and criminal finance, including a new licensing system for money services business, additional funding of £1 million for the Charity Commission and the creation of a dedicated Treasury asset-freezing unit. Today, the Treasury is publishing its first quarterly report to Parliament on the operation of the UK's asset-freezing regime, which shows that, in the quarter to December 2006, the Treasury made seven domestic designations under terrorism and al-Qaeda orders.

Greg Hands: The Minister announced yesterday in his statement
	"new safeguards on the payment of state benefits to the households of terror suspects".—[ Official Report, 28 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 85WS.]
	He will be aware that I wrote last week to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to call for an urgent investigation into Abu Hamza and his household, and their benefit claims. They have been drawing income support while seemingly receiving rental income from a house and also paying private school fees to the King Fahd academy. Given the Minister's pledge yesterday, will he speak to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure that the investigation finally takes place?

Edward Balls: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had written to the Department for Work and Pensions. I was aware of the fact that we had a meeting a few months ago and then an Adjournment debate, in which he promised to write to me. I am still waiting for the letter.

Rob Marris: I was wondering whether my hon. Friend could say, given the many steps taken by the Government and those he has outlined today, whether he anticipates all-party support across the House for these sorts of measures.

Edward Balls: I would very much hope so.

Theresa Villiers: Why was the report 12 months late? Why does it fail to close the loophole that allowed Abu Hamza to transfer a £200,000 property to his son? Can the House have any confidence that the new asset-freezing unit that was announced will be any more effective than the dismally unsuccessful Assets Recovery Agency, which was shut down after it cost £60 million to set up and collected only £8 million in assets from criminals?

Edward Balls: I fear that a cross-party consensus on tackling the financing of international terrorism is still some way away. I have answered these questions before in Treasury questions, and also in a letter to the hon. Lady, in a meeting and in an Adjournment debate with the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands). Every time I have pointed out that the actions that we took were consistent with UN, EU and UK law and were taken on the advice of the police and the security services. She may not think that it is important to act on the advice of the police and the security services, but I do and so do the Government. The document has been drawn up with close co-operation between the Home Office, the police, the agencies and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It is a state-of-the-art document that shows that we are acting in the national interest to tackle these issues. I wish that we could have a bit more maturity in this debate and a bit more of a cross-party consensus.

Full Employment

Shona McIsaac: What progress he has made towards his aim of achieving full employment.

Gordon Brown: There are 2.6 million more people in work than in 1997. There is higher employment in every region. Employment is at record levels and our pay announcements today will help to continue to increase employment in the economy.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that in January 2000 the unemployment rate in the Cleethorpes constituency was running at 5.8 per cent., but that this January it was down to 3.4 per cent.? That is excellent news, although obviously more needs to be done to reduce that rate further. What effect does he think scrapping the new deal would have on maintaining full employment?

Gordon Brown: To scrap the new deal would be to go against the advice of not only the Government—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Yes, but it would also be to go against the advice of the Conservative Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who said:
	"The programme has been effective in reducing long-term youth unemployment",
	and that
	"Clearly many young people have been helped by this programme and it has led to a fall in the overall level of long-term youth unemployment."
	My hon. Friend cited figures for her constituency. If Conservative Front Benchers looked at the figures for their constituencies, they would see that, since 1997, unemployment is down by 48 per cent. in the constituency of the shadow Chancellor and by 33 per cent. in the constituency of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In the other constituencies, the figures vary from 27 to 40 to 58 per cent. In each of their constituencies, unemployment is down. That is why they should support the new deal.

Julia Goldsworthy: Despite the progress on employment that the Chancellor describes, does he agree that income inequality is still a key issue to be addressed? Does he accept the findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which points to growth in the top incomes as a driver of continued income inequality? Does he agree that that should be resolved through the taxation system, or does he think that it should be tackled through enforced charitable donations as one of his Cabinet colleagues has suggested?

Gordon Brown: I wish that the hon. Lady's party would support the tax credit system, which is helping people in work to get higher incomes. The minimum wage is effectively a minimum income when translated through the working tax credit to something like £7 an hour for work. Unfortunately, the Liberal party has failed to support the tax credit system. The hon. Lady talks about helping low-income workers, but if I remember rightly her party also opposed the minimum wage. Is it not time that the Liberal party think again— [Interruption.] The Liberals wanted a regionally varied minimum wage; they did not want the national minimum wage. They should go back to the drawing board on this as on other issues.

Gavin Strang: Following on from that, does my right hon. Friend agree that although one major reason why unemployment has fallen in recent years is his successful management of the economy, another factor is Labour's tax credits, which mean that work pays for families who, under the Conservatives, were better off on benefits?

Gordon Brown: I agree, and I can only quote the Conservative social justice policy group's mid-term report, which says:
	"For the past 10 years, inflation has been low, the stop-go cycle has given way to continued economic growth and there has been full employment."
	This has been
	"a period of unprecedented prosperity."
	I hope that the shadow Chancellor can at least endorse his own party's report.

Brooks Newmark: Will the Chancellor acknowledge the important role that private equity plays in creating employment in this country? Will he press that point home to the GMB?

Gordon Brown: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been following Treasury questions. I said at the beginning that there is much evidence that the rate of job creation through private equity has been high. We have to distinguish between good companies which are long-termist and some companies that are too short-termist. I hope that he agrees that the measures that we are taking to try to increase long-term investment in the economy, based first of all on stability, are ones that he should support. That is why it is rather strange that Conservative Front Benchers want to change the macro-economic settlement that was agreed in 1997 and has given us the longest period of unprecedented growth in our history.

Barbara Keeley: We know that access to affordable child care is often an issue if parents are to find employment. Although the number of registered child care places doubled by the end of 2006, some people in some parts of the country still find it an issue. What priority does my right hon. Friend attach to continuing, and increasing, funding for that affordable child care?

Gordon Brown: I accept that this is a priority, particularly for single parents going back into work. The rate of single parent employment has risen from 43 to 57 per cent. over the past few years and will continue to rise as a result of policies that we will roll out to all areas of the country. My hon. Friend mentioned support for child care. In 1997, when we came into power, child care help was given to only 50,000 families in this country. As a result of the tax credits that the Conservative party opposed, 300,000 families now have child care support—six times as many as previously. I do not believe that there are people who receive that child tax credit who will support Conservative plans to take it away.

Jeremy Hunt: Given that the mother of a disabled child is seven times less likely to be in work than mothers of other children, and that half of all disabled children are growing up in or at the margins of poverty, what specific measures will the Chancellor introduce to end the poverty and benefits trap that makes it impossible for so many disabled people and their families to look for work?

Gordon Brown: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, because I can tell him that a review is taking place of what help we can give to families with disabled children. Only last week I visited a carer who has been caring for 18 years for her disabled child and now wants to work. I was talking to her about how we could help to make it possible for her to do so. When the hon. Gentleman puts his question, he should acknowledge what is already being done. In his constituency there are 4,400 families benefiting from tax credits, including 8,000 children. I hope that he will make representations to the shadow Chancellor to keep child tax credits, and I hope that he will acknowledge that unemployment has fallen by 43 per cent. in his constituency since Labour came to power.

Jim Devine: Central to my right hon. Friend's economic success was giving independence to the Bank of England. Can the Bank of England set interest rates for foreign countries?

Gordon Brown: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals from the Scottish National party, but he should recognise that the party is fighting the Scottish Parliament elections on three separate proposals. One is to keep the British pound; one is to have a completely separate Scottish pound; and the other is to do what the Conservatives did with the exchange rate mechanism, and have a special relationship between a Scottish pound and an English pound. Each of those proposals— [Interruption.] We did not support the mechanism when it led to 15 per cent. interest rates under the Conservative Government through the total mismanagement of the economy. On the day we left the ERM, the present Leader of the Opposition was standing next to Lord Lamont, having to accept that the country had 15 per cent. interest rates for a whole year. We are certainly not going back to the failed policies of the Conservative Government.

Tax Credits

David Amess: What proportion of appeals against repayments of tax credits have been refused since April 2006; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in my answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway), recovery of the tax credit overpayment can be disputed. However, if the process has been settled and the dispute has not been upheld, the money is recovered. The only situation in which the money would not be recovered is when the claimant shows that recovery would cause severe hardship.

David Amess: What a shambles of a Government! We all know who is responsible for this particular fiasco: the next Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady has any appreciation of the distress felt by the thousands of constituents who present themselves at our surgeries because they are worried about making the repayments. Will she apologise to the House for that mistake, admit that the system is over-complicated, and simplify it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is displeased about something.

Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is because there are 5,800 families and some 9,400 children benefiting from tax credits in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In the past six months, he has written to me just five times about the issue of overpayment, so his rhetoric does not match the reality in his constituency, where thousands of families are getting the money that they need, when they need it, and they welcome it. They fear that if his party were in government, it would take that away from them.

David Laws: In both of the past two years there have been more than a third of a million disputed tax credit overpayments. In 2005, in 46 per cent. of cases, the claims of overpayment were overturned and written off on appeal, versus 4 per cent. last year. Why is the appeals system getting tougher, when it ought to be getting fairer?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman draws completely the wrong conclusion, as normal. Perhaps he will understand that the overpayments should not be blamed on the Department, as he seeks to do, or on individual claimants; he should recognise that as we have a responsive system, the claimant has to make sure that the information given is correct. Under the Liberals' proposals for a fixed system that he is peddling around the country, more than 700,000 families who benefit from tax credits would be worse off.

Childhood Well-being

David Burrowes: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of UK macro-economic performance on childhood well-being.

Edward Balls: Macro-economic stability has allowed the Government to achieve growth with fairness. Since 1997, average incomes have risen by 2.9 per cent., but the greatest growth has been for the poorest 40 per cent. of families, whose incomes have grown by an average of 3.4 per cent. a year. We should compare that to the period of 1979 to 1997, when incomes grew by an annual rate of just 0.1 per cent.

David Burrowes: Given UNICEF's assessment that relationships have a significant impact on childhood well-being, would Britain perform better if we followed the advice of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, supported today by the Economic Secretary, not to give tax breaks to married couples? Or should we take the view of the Work and Pensions Secretary, which is that there should be support for couples who look after children? Will the Economic Secretary confirm that he agrees with the response given to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), and that the Government do not support marriage as a means of promoting childhood well-being?

Edward Balls: I could not work out from that whether the hon. Gentleman supported the shadow Chancellor's policy or that of the Leader of the Opposition. The UNICEF report was based on data that went up to 2000. Since then, there has been a substantial fall in child poverty. The House does not have to take my word for it, as an esteemed newspaper columnist told the BBC:
	"I'm mildly sceptical about the Unicef report...some of its facts are mildly out of date...I think it was actually unfair to the Government."
	That commentator was the shadow Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Minister understand that the critical—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am desperate to reach the hon. Lady's question.

Household Budgets

Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of the impact of his policies on the household budgets of mortgage holders over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

John Healey: The Government's macro-economic framework in the past 10 years has delivered unprecedented stability and rising prosperity, which means that households benefit from rising employment, strong income growth and low and stable interest rates.

Fiona Mactaggart: I know that householders will be grateful for low interest rates under this Government. Even the present, slightly increased interest rates are lower than those that prevailed for all but seven months of the years up to 1997. Has my hon. Friend noticed that our Government's record is significantly better than that in the 18 preceding years, in which interest rates were in double digits for 11 and a half years?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is tough to make household finances meet at the best of times, particularly if one has to make mortgage payments on top of other expenses. Clearly, it is very much tougher if interest rates are not at 5.25 per cent., as they are now, but at 10.5 per cent., which they averaged for the entire period in which the Conservative Government were in office.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Jack Straw: Before I announce business for the next two weeks, may I wish all my Welsh colleagues and the people of Wales a happy St. David's day?
	The provisional business for the week commencing 5 March will be:
	Monday 5 March—Second Reading of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 6 March—Debate on House of Lords reform.
	Wednesday 7 March—Conclusion of debate on House of Lords reform.
	Thursday 8 March—To mark international women's day, a debate entitled "Women, Justice and Gender Equality in the UK" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 9 March—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 12 March will be:
	Monday 12 March—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. Subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee.
	Tuesday 13 March—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill.
	Wednesday 14 March—A debate on Trident on a Government motion.
	Thursday 15 March—A debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Subject to be announced.
	Friday 16 March—The House will not be sitting.
	I should like to say a brief word about proceedings for the debate on House of Lords reform on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. It is a two-day debate which, under the terms of a business motion agreed by the House earlier this week, will come to a conclusion earlier than the usual finishing time on a Wednesday, ending at 5.30 pm, to allow more time for the number of Divisions that may be required. A total of nine motions have been tabled in my name. In accordance with the precedent set in 2003, and as permitted by the business motion that has already been agreed, the Government intend to move all nine motions, to allow the House to express its view on each proposition, even if one option has already received a majority, or appears to be inconsistent with the next option to be put.
	The House will be aware that as part of the review of House services Members will receive a survey in their pigeonholes next week, and I encourage all of them to complete it. There are sometimes complaints about services provided by different departments, so if Members wish to contribute constructively to improvements, it is important that they fill in the survey.

Theresa May: I join the Leader of the House in his best wishes to all Welsh colleagues, and thank him for acceding to our request for a debate on Welsh affairs today. I also thank him for giving us all the future business.
	The Government's consultation on post office closures is due to end next week. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the results will be announced to the House in a statement before they are given to the media?
	It was good to see the Chancellor make a rare visit to the House for Treasury questions just before the business question. On Tuesday he gave yet another leadership campaign speech, and said that immigrants should do community work before they become British citizens—but this policy was blocked by the Chancellor himself four years ago, on the grounds of cost. On Wednesday the Minister for Children and Families announced that the Chancellor's youth opportunity card would be abandoned, again on the grounds of cost. It seems that the prudent Chancellor is not so prudent when it comes to his own leadership ambitions. May we have a debate on the Chancellor's policy proposals?
	The Chancellor seems to be talking about all sorts of issues these days—perhaps that is why his colleagues are so ready to be open about what they think of him—but on the many issues for which he is responsible, he is surprisingly reticent. The Leader of the House will, as Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on the Olympic games, be aware of the budget for 2012. First, we were told that the games would cost £2.35 billion; then we were told they would cost £3.3 billion. Now we are told that the cost could run to £9 billion. Will the Chancellor come to the House to make a statement? He likes talking about hosting the football World cup. Why is he so shy about the Olympics?
	Another matter that the Chancellor is not keen to talk about is the soaring deficits in NHS trusts. Three quarters of primary care trusts are restricting access to treatment, half are delaying operations and 60 per cent. of acute hospital trusts are already closing wards. All we have had from the Government is a guide on how to spin the news to the media. May we have a debate on the Chancellor's NHS cuts?
	Next week we will debate reform of the House of Lords. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for setting out the procedure that will be followed for the voting. House of Lords reform is another issue in which the Chancellor does not seem to be interested. Since he was elected on a manifesto promising
	"to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative",
	there have been 21 separate votes on that. How many times has the Chancellor voted? Not once. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on what will happen to Lords reform when the Chancellor completes his smooth transition? You never know—perhaps next week we will see him voting for an entirely elected House. After all, that is about the only way he can avoid giving the Prime Minister a peerage.
	We have a Prime Minister who is in office and not in power. We have a Chancellor in the office next door longing for power. People want to see Cabinet Ministers running the country, not running political campaigns. Everyone is sick of "waiting for Gordo", but if the Prime Minister will not go now, should not the Chancellor just get on with his job?

Dennis Skinner: Never read jokes.

Chris Bryant: She did not.

Jack Straw: She did not read it; she made it up—it was entirely spontaneous. That is the problem.
	The right hon. Lady must have a crush on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. She kept obsessing about him in every other sentence, and she has just had an hour of ogling him. It is curious. Apparently he never comes to the House—but he has just been here, answering questions in his normal robust style.
	The right hon. Lady wants a debate on spending. We can have a debate on tax and spending any time. There will be four whole days of opportunity to debate tax and spending in the Budget debate. That will be a great opportunity for us to debate the latest shift in approach by the Conservative shadow Chancellor. According to  The Daily Telegraph, which, as we know, is accurate when it comes to the Conservative party, members of the shadow Cabinet have been "read the Riot Act" by the shadow Chancellor and told to stop making spending pledges without checking with him first. I am not surprised, because last week Grant Thornton said that the increase in spending promised by the Conservatives was £8.9 billion. [Hon. Members: "Is this business questions?"] They ask whether this is business questions, but this is the question that I was asked. I was asked about spending, and I have given the answer.
	On the costs of the Olympics, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will make a statement—[Hon. Members: "When?"]. As soon as we have settled the issue. The Conservatives backed the Olympic bid, and now they are trying to back away from it. The simple fact of the matter is that the Stratford site is one of the most complex anywhere, and the costs are bound to be revised in the light of experience. There will be a statement as soon as we have pinned those costs down.
	The right hon. Lady asked about deficits in the national health service. She will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently made a statement saying that, allowing for the use of contingency, it looks as though there will be a small surplus this year of £13 million, so I do not know where the right hon. Lady got her point from.
	The right hon. Lady then made some spurious comments about debate taking place in the Labour party. There is a debate in the Labour party about its future— [Interruption.] She talks about leadership campaigns, but I have to tell her that that debate is comradely in the extreme compared to what I read on the blog of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) about what is going on— [Interruption.] No, this week, too.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am just wondering about next week's business.

Jack Straw: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. Part of my duty, however, is pastoral care for all Members, so they ought to be aware that I take a close interest in all Members' blogs. What we are told is that inside the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)
	"swims in shark infested waters",
	and also that
	"David knows who the creeps are, you can see it in his eyes."
	And that is about his own side. I look forward to next week's business.

James McGovern: Can we have a debate on party finance? Some concerns have been expressed on this side of the House recently that our party's links with the trade unions have been underemphasised. Earlier this week, the Scottish National party claimed that the Short money that it receives from the state was actually raised by the party itself as part of its campaign fund. Surely a debate would allow us to cover those issues and ensure that our voice is heard early in the process.

Jack Straw: I would be delighted to have a debate on the funding of political parties. I would be very happy indeed for the relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions to be scrutinised. The Neill committee pointed out in 1998 that the system was working well, and there is no evidence of any impropriety since then. As for the Scottish National party, I am not surprised if it makes claims that do not turn out to be entirely accurate. That, after all, is how it has always operated.

David Heath: The Leader of the House said that he was not sure where the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) had got her details on the health service. I suggest that one possible source that might be the basis for a debate is the survey of NHS trust chief executives published today in the  Health Service Journal. It corroborates the right hon. Lady's points and goes on to reveal that 47 per cent. of trusts are making redundancies and that 69 per cent. of chiefs think that patient care will suffer as a result of short-term financial decisions. When asked about the Government's handling of the national health service, the chief executives—the people running the health service—said decisions were "knee-jerk" and Ministers "consistently dishonest and disingenuous". One said:
	"It is hard to imagine greater incompetence".
	We need a debate on what is happening in the health service.
	While we are talking about incompetence, let us move on to the consultation on post office closures. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will actually answer the question about whether we are to have a statement. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead said, consultation is to close on 8 March. Is it not extraordinary that neither the Government nor the Post Office thought it appropriate to send the consultation document to the people most affected—the men and women who run sub-post offices around this country, none of whom has received the consultation document unless they have applied for it themselves? If they have received the document, it will have come from a Member of Parliament such as me, who has sent them a copy. Is that not extraordinary incompetence on the part of the Government?
	May we have an urgent debate on water charges? I live in a village that is not on mains water, and sometimes has no water at all, but those who do have a water company will be alarmed to see that water bills are going up yet again, by up to 10 per cent. Indeed, South West Water bills will soar by an average of £44, to £483, the highest in the country. Is it acceptable that we can have hosepipe bans and leakage at the same time as rocketing water bills, on top of higher council tax bills and winter fuel payments?
	Lastly, may we have a debate on agricultural education? I do not know whether the Leader of the House saw the survey carried out by Dairy Farmers of Britain this week, which revealed that one in 10 eight-year-olds do not know that pork chops come from pigs. A similar number do not know where bacon comes from, and suspect that it may come from sheep. Astonishingly, 2 per cent. think that cows lay eggs. Is it not important that people understand where their food comes from, and the importance of the agriculture industry? Perhaps that is a lesson that would be well learned by Ministers as well.

Jack Straw: We are delighted to debate the national health service on any occasion. As the hon. Gentleman is quoting the survey, he may like to note that, on reform, 90 per cent. of those surveyed apparently think that the Government need to hold their nerve on difficult reconfigurations. If we are debating the health service, what we need to debate is the very significant improvements in the quality and amount of care provided for our constituents. In his constituency —[ Interruption. ] I said this last week because he does not say it often enough, and I am having to do his job as a constituency Member for Frome. Thanks to somebody—but obviously not him—£100 million is now going into a new hospital configuration in his constituency.
	I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's indolence; he has just admitted that there is sometimes no water at all in the village where he lives. What is the local MP doing about that? On a serious point, I am not here to defend the water companies. They are private companies that need to be strictly regulated. There is great concern across the country about the level of water charges and the need for Ofwat to be vigorous in regulating the companies. I look forward to his making strong representations to the water companies, as I do in my area. On a matter of fact, winter fuel costs have gone down this winter because the price of fuel has fallen—but I do not expect that the facts would be of great concern to him.
	On post offices, I apologise to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead for omitting to answer her question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has been assiduous in coming to the House on this and other matters, will of course make a statement. I cannot guarantee at this stage whether it will be an oral or a written statement, but I say to everybody who is concerned about the formation of the number and distribution of post offices that there needs to be a slightly higher level of debate. Recognition is needed that the reason why the Post Office is facing this shrinkage is the internet, and people's changing habits. We have put an astonishing amount of money into rural post offices, and we will continue to do so, but there has to be some change.
	The last thing that the hon. Gentleman asked for is a debate on agricultural education. I agree, as I remember having a discussion some years ago with a child who told me that he was vegetarian. I said that in that case he would not be eating the sausages, and he said, "No, that's different; they come from somewhere else." The level of appreciation is rather limited, and I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about what we can do about that.

Andrew Gwynne: Yet again, throughout my constituency residents are receiving bullying letters from ground rent and chief rent companies asking for information, and sometimes for substantial amounts of money to which they are not entitled. Can we have an urgent debate on this important issue, which is causing a great deal of anxiety to many local residents, particularly pensioners?

Jack Straw: I am aware of that problem, which is particularly serious in the north-west. There are clear legal rights for people who are in that position to commute the ground rent for a relatively small fee. I encourage my hon. Friend to make use of an opportunity to debate this in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment of the House.

George Young: The Leader of the House has confirmed that next Wednesday we will vote on Lords reform—again, and at some length. He has often said that the best should not be the enemy of the good, so can he confirm that he will not only support the 50 per cent. option in his White Paper but vote for the higher elected options as well, and encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same?

Jack Straw: Yes, I can. I will not vote for a wholly elected Chamber, because I am against that, but I will certainly vote for 50 per cent. and the higher options.

Brian Jenkins: Can my right hon. Friend find Government time for a debate in this Chamber on the use of privilege? We all know that privilege is used to stop rich individuals out there using the threat of legal action to prevent Members from raising issues here, but it cannot be right for Members to make allegations against ordinary working people in this country. That cowardly use of privilege only detracts from the status of every Member of this House.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, and I am aware of the background. There are opportunities to debate this matter. I would advise my hon. Friend, if he has not already done so, to talk to the Clerk of the House and, through him, to the Speaker, about whether it could be referred to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.

Pete Wishart: Like all other Members, I am very much looking forward to the debate on Trident. Does the Leader of the House believe that Members who say something publicly on Trident should follow that through in the way that they vote in the Division following the debate? Eighty per cent. of the Scottish people oppose Trident and 45 per cent. say that they will switch their vote away from parties that support it. The majority of Scottish Members of Parliament oppose Trident. Would not the public therefore be right to punish those who say one thing and vote another way?

Jack Straw: The people who say one thing and do another are Scottish National party Members and their allies; they are the experts on this. I hope that when we come to the day for the debate on Trident there will be a very serious discussion about what is in the United Kingdom's long-term defence interests. It is not a trivial matter; it is about the future defence of this country, and, indeed, the security of the world. That applies as much to people who are resident in Scotland as it does to other parts of the United Kingdom.

John Mann: In September, the all-party group on anti-Semitism produced a report that the Government will respond to in the next few weeks. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this issue would be an appropriate subject for proper and thorough debate in this House? If so, will he consult his ministerial colleagues on how best to achieve that?

Jack Straw: I certainly accept the very great importance of this matter. Although I cannot make a promise about the use of time, I will look to see what we can do, whether in Government time or not, on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Three years ago the Government announced that the House's scrutiny of European legislation was inadequate and secretive, and had lost the confidence of the public. Two years ago the Modernisation Committee, which is always chaired by the Leader of the House, recommended sweeping changes. Why have the Government done absolutely nothing to implement those proposals? It is said that this has been blocked by the Labour Whips. Could the Leader of the House account for Government inaction, and for back-pedalling on previous proposals?

Jack Straw: It is correct to say that we have not yet put forward proposals for change. That is a matter of frustration to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, to the Minister for Europe and to myself, as well as to others. It is not true, however, that we are just sitting on this. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the deputy Chief Whip will confirm that he and I, and the new Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, had a discussion about the way forward within the past week or so. The issue for everybody is how best to change the system so that the new system is more effective than the current one, and how to ensure that the changes are not only supported in principle but backed in practice by sufficient Members on both sides of the House who are willing to turn up and do the work. That is the only obstacle in the way of reform.

Geraldine Smith: The chief executive of Royal Mail recently expressed concern that the universal service obligation could be at risk if Royal Mail continues to lose lucrative business contracts. That happens because of unfair competition, in that its competitors can offer discounts, whereas Postcomm does not allow Royal Mail to do that. An early-day motion that I tabled in January expressing similar sentiments received more than 85 signatures from Members. Is it not time that we had a debate on the future of Royal Mail, and on the impact of the regulator?

Jack Straw: I note my hon. Friend's concerns and applaud the interest that she shows in the issue. There are opportunities to raise it in debate. This is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, not for me, but I think that with a certain amount of ingenuity she may be able to make some remarks that are in order during the Budget debates.

Paul Goodman: A debate on integration and cohesion would give the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) a chance to raise the important issue of anti-Semitism. It would also give the House a chance to discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain. When I asked the Leader of the House about this a fortnight ago, he said that business was tight but that it was an idea that we should actively consider. How is that active consideration getting on?

Jack Straw: The active consideration goes on. I am not being facetious; there is a limited amount of time, but I am aware of the importance of the issue, along with that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).

Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on early-day motion 997?
	 [That this House congratulates the Turner Prize-winning artist Steve McQueen for his work Queen and Country, which depicts photographs of 98 British soldiers killed in Iraq printed in a stamp format; and calls on the Royal Mail to respect the wish of the artist and the loved ones of the fallen soldiers and produce a commemorative issue of stamps displaying this powerful and moving work of art.]
	It is the wish of the artist and many of the relatives of the soldiers who died that a commemorative stamp should be issued using this work of art. That would be appropriate, not only because it is a strong and powerful work of art but because it would be reminder to us all of the true cost of war.

Jack Straw: I have the early-day motion in front of me. Of course it is correct that we should honour those 98 and the others who have tragically fallen since, as well as all those who have been injured in Iraq and other theatres. My hon. Friend is aware that there is quite a lot of consideration before any particular image is used on Royal Mail stamps, but there is no argument about the need to honour, and to continue to honour, those who have fallen in Iraq.

John Hemming: In Birmingham perhaps £1 million a year, and in my constituency perhaps £100,000 a year, is spent on clearing up graffiti tagging, yet it seems to be the Government's policy that unless someone does more than £5,000-worth of damage, no more than a caution is necessary. Can we have a debate about how we can deter youths from tagging, perhaps by making them clear up the mess that they create?

Jack Straw: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we will have a debate about as soon as possible—Liberal Democrats saying one thing here and a very different thing in their constituencies. Time and again they criticise us for tough sentences and for introducing more offences, and now this hon. Gentleman stands up to say that we should be doing more, not less. I hope that he will talk to his leader and to those who speak on home affairs for the Liberal Democrat party, and explain to his constituents how time and again he votes for soft policies here, and then parades himself in Birmingham as being in favour of harder policies.

Andrew MacKinlay: Next week's Northern Ireland elections are important not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to each and every one of us. Why, therefore, did nobody in my right hon. Friend's department or in the Northern Ireland Office tap him on the shoulder and say that it is inappropriate to have those important votes on Lords reform on the same day as those elections, in which some hon. Members are candidates? Moreover, from three of the Northern Ireland Members we solicit support for this Government. It seems unfair and unreasonable that that happened, and I want to know why it happened.

Jack Straw: rose—

Andrew MacKinlay: My right hon. Friend would not do the same thing on the first Thursday in May, would he?

Jack Straw: No, but there is a problem. Of course we are aware of that clash. When business is discussed by Government business managers, and then with Opposition business managers, we always look at what else is coming up, but there is never a correct date for some debates. We had to ensure that we could get those debates in at an appropriate time within the programme, taking account of legislation such as the Budget, well before Easter. That was the difficulty. I have already spoken to two of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland and apologised to them for the fact that there is that clash, which is inconvenient.

Greg Hands: Can we have an oral statement on the ongoing investigation into the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko? We had an oral statement in November shortly after the assassination, but an awful lot has happened since. There have been various comings and goings of British and Russian police officers between the two capitals. Serious implications were raised by the incident in terms of both our relations with Russia and the safety and security of dissidents and other prominent persons in this country. We need to take another look at that.

Jack Straw: It is not usual for statements to be made by Ministers while investigations are continuing, but I will pass on to the Home and Foreign Secretaries the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman and invite them to make a statement, probably a written one, at an appropriate moment.

Denis MacShane: In the sayonara period of the Prime Minister's term of office, can the Leader of the House tempt him to come to the House for the debate just before the European Council? Can he tempt him to lead the debate himself, on a Government motion and on a vote, to explain the advantages of being in the European Union and the disastrous consequences of the relentless hostility of the Conservative party even to its sister Conservative parties in Europe, which is deeply damaging to the national interest?

Jack Straw: I would be delighted to do so. Of course, the Prime Minister, even if he cannot be tempted into that debate, will be making a statement straight after the European Council. One of the central issues there will be whether we act on climate change through co-operation in Europe, which is fundamental to our approach, or whether we take the approach of the Conservative party, which is to act unilaterally and to eschew any co-operation with mainstream centre-right parties in Europe. The result of that will be greatly to weaken our ability to make progress on climate change and on many other issues.

Nicholas Winterton: May I make a sincere plea to the Leader of the House for a debate on Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe has the world's highest inflation rate of 1,594 per cent., which is putting even basic foodstuffs beyond the reach of many families. More than 1 million people, mainly orphans and schoolchildren, are in receipt of food aid. Hospitals are on strike; doctors and nurses are refusing to work. University lecturers are on strike, supported by their students, and the Government have banned any form of public meeting. Zimbabwe is deteriorating into complete chaos and anarchy. Is not it time that the House had a debate in Government time to show the people of Zimbabwe that we care for their plight? It is a wonderful country with a wonderful people and they deserve more from the civilised world.

Jack Straw: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his consistent concern about Zimbabwe. I agree with him both about the terrible plight of Zimbabwe and the need for a debate in Government time. The only bit of slightly better news relatively is that the European Union recently agreed for the fifth year running to roll over the sanctions against Zimbabwe. I have to say, as the Foreign Secretary who got those sanctions under orders to begin with, that that was quite difficult because of resistance from some of our continental colleagues. This morning, I was talking about a date to the Chief Whip and the Minister in the Foreign Office who would handle the debate. Frankly, the issue is to ensure that we have a debate when he is in the country. However, we are actively considering the matter.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that we are in the middle of fair trade fortnight. Can we have a debate in order that we can promote even further the benefits of fair trade not just to the British consumer, but to those less fortunate than ourselves? That would also give us the opportunity to congratulate the local authorities, volunteers and retailers who work all year round promoting fair trade products.

Jack Straw: I commend the work of my hon. Friend on that matter. I hope very much that it will be possible to find time in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment to raise that important issue.

Andrew MacKay: Did not Monday's statement by the Defence Secretary deploying further troops to Afghanistan underline how important it is that we have a debate in Government time on Afghanistan? It cannot be right for us to put at risk the lives of so many young men and women in our armed forces without the House properly debating what is going on in Afghanistan. Can we have an urgent debate?

Jack Straw: I do not deny for a second the importance of that issue. There has been one occasion this year when the matter has been debated—in the defence and the world debate. I accept the need for that matter to continue to be debated. I cannot promise a debate before Easter, but I will look at opportunities after that.

David Anderson: Can my right hon. Friend, or the appropriate Minister, investigate the recent actions of American troops in Iraq, who, on three occasions in the past two weeks, have raided trade union offices, destroyed equipment, confiscated computers and fax machines and arrested some of the employees?

Jack Straw: I will certainly pass on to the Foreign Secretary the concerns raised by my hon. Friend for the trade union movement in Iraq. Although I know nothing about that particular incident, I know a lot about the bravery and commitment of the trade union officials and movement in Iraq.

Julian Lewis: In welcoming the 14 March debate on Trident on behalf of the shadow Defence Ministers, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will guarantee that there will be no intrusion by statements on the time for that debate? Will there be protected time—six and a half hours—for that debate? Does he agree that it would send the wrong signal about the importance of this as a defence issue for the Defence Secretary to be relegated, as appears to be the case, to winding up the debate, rather than presenting the case, which he is perfectly capable of doing?

Jack Straw: I accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. Unless there is some emergency, we will do everything we can to avoid any statement before the debate begins. Frankly, I think that the second point is rather trivial. The responsibility for that kind of major issue has always been shared between the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. If I were still Foreign Secretary, it is quite likely that I would open the debate on the issue.

Wayne David: I thank my right hon. Friend for his best wishes on St. David's day. He will be aware that on 3 May there are elections to the Welsh Assembly. Two of the candidates are members of a party called Forward Wales. However, they are standing in that election as independents. Can we have a debate on whether that deceitful practice is in breach of electoral law?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend on the first point. I hope that he is successful in securing a debate on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall on that issue. He may also wish to consider making complaints to the Electoral Commission and to the returning officer because the accurate description of candidates is fundamental to the operation of our democracy.

John Barrett: The Leader of the House may be aware of the Light Bulb (Regulation) Bill that would allow for the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs. If he would like to feel the hand of history on his shoulder, will he find time in this House to debate that important issue?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is trying to garner some green credentials, but I gather that his green credentials are rather tarnished by the Liberal Democrats' opposition to other serious environmental plans, including the congestion charge in Edinburgh and wind farms in various areas in Scotland.

Diana Johnson: My right hon. Friend will know that on 25 March we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. This morning, a group of walkers have left Hull in chains to walk to Westminster to celebrate this important anniversary. Will there be an opportunity to have a debate on the Floor of the House about the anniversary and the modern context of slavery?

Jack Straw: I commend my hon. Friend's constituents and I can tell her that there will be a debate in Government time about slavery.

Stewart Jackson: The Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 964:
	 [That this House views with concern the plans to cut the number of employees of HM Revenue and Customs in Leicestershire; notes that this will result in the loss of more than 300 jobs; believes that there are already problems with the level of service in this area which would only worsen with a significant cut in staff numbers and budget; and calls on the Paymaster General to reconsider the decision.]
	It was tabled by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is in his place, and relates to the review of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the impact that that is having on the abolition of jobs, particularly front-line jobs. Will it be possible to have a debate on that? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a friendly word with the Paymaster General about the criteria used in identifying the job losses across the country, which are causing concern to Members on both sides of the House?

Jack Straw: There are plenty of opportunities to question my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, including Treasury questions, which has just finished. Apparently the Conservative party, as from yesterday, is supporting a fairly tight public spending regime. All Governments will be faced with the need to reconfigure operations such as Revenue and Customs in light of the fact that the operations have merged and as improved technology is reducing the need for some jobs in some areas. The difference between any Government led by the hon. Gentleman's party and ours is that under this Government we have a buoyant economy and good investment in retraining to provide alternative opportunities for any people who are displaced.

Gordon Prentice: As my friend knows, the consultation ended yesterday on the setting up and regulation of marketing departments in NHS hospitals. Can we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Health on that matter, and perhaps a debate afterwards on how the emerging market in health will be policed?

Jack Straw: I am happy that my hon. Friend raises that, because getting to a period of stability in the NHS will enable primary care trusts to identify the medical care needs of people in their area and the most appropriate provision. There will be a certain amount of creative competition between different providers. That has always been the case, but it has always been sub rosa and I think that it is better if it is explicit. As a result, we will be able to change the culture of some NHS establishments to ensure that they are absolutely focused on their overwhelming priority—the patient.

Clive Betts: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that last week, I had a phone call from Mrs Anne Parker, a constituent from Basegreen in Sheffield. She was extremely distraught at a story in the Daily Mirror to the effect that, as a result of the Hills report, all council tenants and arm's-length management organisation tenants faced the possibility of losing their security of tenure. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on that very important report into social housing by John Hills, so that Ministers can make it absolutely clear that, under this Government, there is no possibility of council, ALMO or housing association tenants losing their security of tenure?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has already made the Government's position clear, but I will pass on to her my hon. Friend's concerns and ensure that she writes to him.

Philip Davies: May I ask the Leader of the House for a statement on discrimination in the workplace? The head of the new Equality Commission, Sir Trevor Phillips, has demanded that rules forbidding discrimination on the grounds of race or sex be scrapped. Are the Government happy that the head of the equality body believes that people should not be given jobs on merit and should be given jobs based on their race and their sex? Do the Government intend to abide by his demands?

Jack Straw: That is a complete parody of what Sir Trevor Phillips had to say. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman spelled out whether he was in favour of efforts to improve the equality of opportunities for women, ethnic minorities and the disabled.

David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend explain briefly what he anticipates happening after next Wednesday's votes and, in particular, what is likely to happen in the other place? Will he affirm that the votes in this place will always take primacy over the votes in the other place?

Jack Straw: I wish that I could tell my hon. Friend exactly what is going to happen, but that would require clairvoyant facilities greater than mine.

John Bercow: No!

Jack Straw: Even greater.
	After our debate, there will be a debate in the other place. I thought it important to ensure that these debates did not occur on the same day, so that this House could assert its primacy—something that has been agreed by all parties in this House and in the other place, regardless of shifts in composition. Of course we will take account of the views of the other place but, ultimately, this is a matter of law and this House must decide.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on surface coal mining in Shropshire? Is the Leader of the House aware of a proposal by UK Coal to mine 900,000 tonnes of coal in new works in my constituency? Will he comment on what impact he thinks that will have on local wildlife, residents and roads and, most of all, on the area of outstanding natural beauty that will be affected?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not accept his invitation because I assume, although I am not certain, that that is subject to a planning application—and, if that is turned down, an inquiry, subject to the outcome of which a decision may have to be made personally by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I invite the hon. Gentleman to make strong representations, as he is doing here, at every stage of the process.

Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent statement or a debate on the very serious allegations in today's edition of  The Times by Chief Superintendent Dizaei, who states that he was subjected to a campaign of harassment by his fellow officers in the Met, that his phone was bugged and that there was an investigation by 44 officers that cost millions of pounds? He also states that the Mayor of London's race adviser, Lee Jasper, was also the subject of bugging. These are very serious matters because the chief superintendent is the borough commander of Hounslow. I know that the Leader of the House was committed to diversity when he was Home Secretary. This matter creates real problems for the image of the Met, so could we please have a statement?

Jack Straw: It was not only me who was committed to diversity—and the Government actually did something about it—so, too, were Sir Paul Condon and Sir John Stevens, former Commissioners of the Metropolitan police. On the very specific allegations, my right hon. Friend will be aware that those who feel that the intelligence and security services have acted inappropriately or unlawfully have a right to make strong representations, and have those investigated, to the intelligence services commissioner or the interception commissioner.

John Penrose: In common, I suspect, with many other hon. Members, I am receiving strong representations from people who are studying English as a second language, and who are worried that the Government plan to cut funding for those courses. Given the Chancellor's professed support for Britishness and citizenship, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) alluded, and the recommendations in the Leitch report about the importance of language as a preparation for work, is there any possibility of having a debate on this important issue?

Jack Straw: We are all aware of the pressures on the English as a second language service, not least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The hon. Gentleman may be fortunate in gaining an Adjournment debate on the matter, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Tom Watson: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on holding a St. David's day debate today, and I ask him to consider allowing a similar debate on St. George's day, so that all Members who believe in the Union can celebrate the patron saint of England. Does he agree that that would send the important message to the racist parties, such as the British National party, that we will never allow them to hijack St. George's day for their own brand of narrow-minded extremism?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. My two Scottish colleagues who are currently sitting on the Front Bench—the Defence Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram), who is the longest-serving Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence ever in the history of the world, as he himself told me not long ago—have both endorsed that as a good idea. As an Englishman, I think that it is a good idea. In reply to the question, I cannot make an absolute promise, but we will look into that.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) spoke movingly about the situation in Zimbabwe. However, given that the numbers of people dead, dying and destitute in Darfur are increasing exponentially on a daily basis, and given that no fewer than 14 United Nations agencies have warned that malnutrition rates there are
	"edging perilously close to the emergency threshold",
	can we please also have next week a statement—or, better still, a full-day debate—on Darfur to seek to establish how the international community will secure a properly equipped United Nations or African Union presence in that region before the genocide has been completed?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise his concerns, which are shared by all Members and all parties. We continually look for opportunities to debate such matters. I simply say—although I know that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting this—that there is not a competition between Zimbabwe and Darfur. We must debate both matters, but there are special responsibilities on the United Kingdom in respect of Zimbabwe, and we have been in the lead in the European Union in getting sanctions. There is great frustration about Darfur, but the hon. Gentleman might wish to know that the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is today asking judges to consider summonses in respect of two individuals. He might also wish to know that as a result of very strong representations that I made—I claim credit for this—the United States lifted its potential veto on a Security Council resolution that effectively brought the ICC into play in respect of Darfur.

Chris Bryant: As is traditional, the Leader of the House has announced the business for the next two weeks, but he has announced only the main business; he has not announced any statements that there might be. Of course, many statements are responses to emergencies and nobody would expect there to be foreknowledge of those, but I suspect that there might be a Minister or two who already knows, or is almost certain, that they will make a statement within the next two weeks. Might it be possible for the Leader of the House to start to make announcements in advance in respect of statements that he knows will definitely be given, for the better forewarning of the House and so that we do not get up in the morning and, by listening to the "Today" programme or watching the television news, hear that a Minister will make an announcement later in the day when no Members of this House have been informed of that? Might it be possible to send an e-mail? Instead of having a piece of paper stuck up outside the Chamber saying that there will be a statement later in the day, my right hon. Friend could arrange for e-mails to be sent to all Members.

Jack Straw: I am aware of that issue. There are two aspects to it. One of them is that sometimes information that should first be given to this House is instead made available outside it, sometimes as a result of Ministers' decisions— of which I do not approve—and at other times because of leaks. I deprecate that, and all Ministers seek to avoid it. The second aspect is to do with advance notice of statements. I am actively looking into that with my Cabinet colleagues and the Clerk of the House. On occasions when everyone knows that a statement is to be made, such as the Budget—everyone knows the date when that will be delivered—notice of statements might be put on the Order Paper at least on the morning when the statement is to be made, and in some cases well before that.

Justine Greening: Can we have a debate on the robustness of the British crime survey? It is an annual survey that the Government put great store by in judging whether crime is rising or falling, yet it does not cover a variety of offences, ranging from commercial offences, murder—because the victims of that cannot be interviewed—and offences that it calls victimless, including drugs offences. Crucially, it also does not cover offences against people who are aged 16 and under because they are not interviewed as part of the survey. Can we have a debate on that matter, to try to discover how we can make the British crime survey relate to crime in today's Britain, rather than crime in the Britain of 1981 when it was established?

Jack Straw: If the hon. Lady has concerns about the crime survey, she needs to raise them with the Office for National Statistics, which we are now making independent of Government. One of the reasons why we are doing that is so that there is complete integrity in terms of the data that are used. It has never been suggested that the British crime survey is a substitute for the recorded crime figures; what the BCS shows, in respect of those groups surveyed and the offences concerned—it shows this in a robust, statistical way—is whether the numbers of offences have increased or fallen. It is able to knock out of consideration some offences which are not notified to the police. As the hon. Lady is aware, the truth is that some offences, such as burglary and thefts of vehicles, traditionally have high and consistent levels of notification whereas others have relatively low levels of notification, including some robberies—so-called minor robberies, although I think that they are all major—and thefts from vehicles. I accept that there is an issue to be addressed, but it is time that the hon. Lady acknowledged that the BCS none the less shows that since 1997, in respect of bulk offences that affect everybody including families and kids under 16, there has been a very significant decline in crime in her constituency, as well as elsewhere. One of the reasons for that might be that there has been an increase in the number of police officers in her area—up from 563 in March 2001 to 589 in January 2007.

Philip Hollobone: Can we have a statement from the Minister with responsibility for prisons on the closure of Her Majesty's Prison Service office at Crown house in Corby and its relocation to Leicester? Many of my constituents who serve as part of the almost 90-strong work force—many of whom are female and young mums with children who work part-time—will not be able to join in the relocation, and they are aghast to hear from the Prison Service that one of the reasons for the relocation of the office is that the population of Corby is 94 per cent white British whereas the population in Leicester is less than 60 per cent. white British. Is it not appalling that such decisions are made on racial grounds?

Jack Straw: I do not believe for a second that the hon. Gentleman's final point is correct. I have looked into this matter, as I rightly guessed that the hon. Gentleman would raise it, and it is my understanding that this transfer was triggered by a decision to sell the property in Corby that is currently occupied by the National Offender Management Service because there was an approach—presumably by developers, as I am told that the building sits within the phase 2 area of the Corby regeneration programme.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman endorses that from a sedentary position. That is why the building is being closed for the current purposes, and it is then up to the Prison Service to make decisions on where to relocate the staff.

Mark Lancaster: As we have recently had a debate on buses, can we now have a debate on trains? Perhaps that would enable us to get to the bottom of why the Government seem to misunderstand, or misrepresent, why so few Virgin trains—in fact none—now stop at Milton Keynes during peak hours. Bizarrely, one train does stop, but only to set down passengers—it will not allow anybody on. When I asked the Secretary of State about that, he said that the issue was the platform length at Milton Keynes, but in a written answer last week he said that there is nothing wrong with the platform length there. Reading between the lines, it is pretty clear that the Government's priority is those travelling from the north, but why should local people in Milton Keynes be discriminated against in that way?

Jack Straw: I am sorry that although I have used the inter-city west coast main line for 30 years, I do not have the full details of the timetable in my head. However, I have been on plenty of trains that have stopped at Milton Keynes, both at peak hours and at off-peak hours, and both to pick up and to set down passengers. The hon. Gentleman should also be aware that as a result of our investment in the railway service, the inter-city west coast main line is more efficient, more punctual and far better patronised. I am surprised that he did not commend what I understand to be an almost definite plan to expand Milton Keynes railway station through the addition of a further platform—is that not correct?—in order to increase its capacity.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Adam Ingram: Before I make my formal statement on the UK military commitment in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I want to pay tribute to Rifleman Coffey, who died in Iraq on Tuesday. Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time.
	The UK first deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992, as part of UNPROFOR, in response to inter-ethnic violence resulting from the collapse of the former Republic of Yugoslavia. We are all sadly familiar with the atrocities committed during the Bosnian war, which resulted in an estimated 100,000 people being killed and the forcible displacement of some 1.8 million people. After three years of conflict and following a NATO air and land campaign, a ceasefire in Bosnia-Herzegovina was agreed in 1995. This was followed by the brokering of the general framework agreement for peace—more commonly known as the Dayton agreement—underpinned by the deployment of NATO forces.
	The international community has retained a military presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina since then, initially through NATO and, since 2004, through a European Union force. At its peak, the international community presence under NATO amounted to some 60,000 troops, including approximately 12,000 UK personnel. Today, there are approximately 6,000 international troops in EUFOR, some 600 of whom are from the UK. This significant reduction over the years is testimony to the continually improving security situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
	Through the UK's involvement in the United Nations, NATO and now EU forces, we have been operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina for some 15 years, contributing to the maintenance of a safe and secure environment. Indeed, we led EUFOR for its first year of operations and have been the lead nation in Task Force (North West). Over the years, UK troops have been engaged in many operations to recover illegally held weapons and ammunition and explosives, as well as assisting local authorities in combating organised crime. I want to set out the detail of some of our successes.
	There are still dangerously high levels of small arms and light weapons in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and while a number of international organisations are implementing initiatives in this field, they are all dependent on donors. Last November, I had the pleasure of opening an explosive waste incinerator designed to destroy surplus small arms ammunition. The UK funding for this project amounts to some £500,000. In addition, the UK continues to fund the training of junior officers from all the three main ethnic backgrounds, thereby contributing to the building of the state. In this financial year, UK support for this project is in the region of £1 million. The UK is also assisting in the development of the NATO trust fund mechanism to facilitate the resettlement into civilian life of up to 6,000 personnel made redundant through defence reform processes. The project will aim to provide training and advice to former soldiers returning to civilian life.
	It is clear that Bosnia-Herzegovina is becoming increasingly safe. In recent years, there have been growing indications of a security situation approaching normality. Parliamentary and presidential elections took place last year and were judged to be free and fair. Significant steps in defence reform have been taken, resulting in the establishment of a single, multi-ethnic military force compatible with NATO. As a result, Bosnia-Herzegovina has been able to contribute a small number of troops to operations in Iraq.
	Perhaps most importantly, the majority of people displaced from their homes during the war have chosen to return—many of them to areas where they do not belong to the majority ethnic group. In recognition of progress in these areas, Bosnia-Herzegovina was invited to join NATO's "Partnership for Peace" programme last autumn, on the condition that there will continue to be full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. NATO will closely monitor these efforts.
	The time is right, therefore, to reassess the role of the international military presence. In December, EU Ministers agreed in principle to transition EUFOR from a large dispersed force structure to a smaller, centralised one. At a meeting of the Political and Security Committee on Tuesday, EU member states gave the final approval, in light of the continually improving security situation, to this change. The resulting reduction in force levels—from approximately 6,000 troops to 2,500—will allow Bosnia-Herzegovina to take more control of its own affairs.
	The EU decision to move to transition is in accordance with clear military advice that the security situation is stable, and that the local authorities are able to cope with all but the most serious incidents. The Welsh Guards, who are currently deployed, will therefore not need to be replaced by any further manoeuvre troops. More than 600 troops, principally from the Welsh Guards, will return to the UK. That means that the UK's future in-theatre commitment for the next phase of EUFOR will be a small number of staff officers in the Sarajevo headquarters, although we will continue to contribute to the pan-Balkans operational reserve force. A small number of troops will also be needed to ensure a smooth transition to the new EUFOR structure, and to dismantle the base at Banja Luka.
	As we come to the end of UK military operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we can look back and see the contribution that our armed forces have made to the rebuilding of a country destroyed by conflict. As with other theatres of operation, they have been central in establishing a secure environment in which political solutions and reconstruction can be pursued. However, while the UK has achieved much, our efforts have not been without significant losses. We must remember those UK servicemen and women who were injured, or who laid down their lives trying to protect the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I pay tribute to them. A series of commemorative events, in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the UK, is being planned in order to honour the 55 personnel who lost their lives and the many thousands who were deployed. I will provide further detail of these events in due course.
	We must look forward as well as back. There is still progress to be made, particularly in pushing forward key political reforms, ensuring less nationalism in political discourse, and developing state-level institutions. The UK must, and will, remain engaged as Bosnia-Herzegovina strengthens her position within Europe and beyond.

Liam Fox: I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. May I fully associate the Conservative party with his remarks about the death of Rifleman Coffey? The whole House applauds his courage and sends condolences to his family and friends.
	Fifteen years after the initial deployment of our troops in Bosnia, British troops are being withdrawn. Bosnia is indeed a different place today and the Balkans are calmer, although not calm. I pay tribute to the contribution of our armed forces. However, I have two reservations. The first concerns the foreign policy assumptions underpinning this statement, and the second is the specific military impact.
	Those who have hoped to see a smooth transition for Kosovo and the end of the international community's governor-like role in Bosnia in 2007 may yet be disappointed. On all fronts, 2007 will be extremely challenging for the region. Serbia remains an unstable country. The most popular political party, the Serbian Radical party, is led by a man—Vojislav Seselj—who is in The Hague facing charges of genocide. Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica presides over a fractious coalition and rejects any notion of independence for Kosovo. The recent unrest in Kosovo and Belgrade's unwillingness constructively to engage in the final status talks have cast a shadow over President Ahtisaari's proposals for supervised independence for Kosovo. In Bosnia itself, separatist forces in the entity of Republika Srpska continue to hamper Bosnia's progress. Given all these problems, how can the Minister talk about the "normality" of the security situation? Where is the normality?
	In June 2006, the international community declared that it wanted a transition from an Office of the High Representative-led presence to a European Union-led presence headed by an EU special representative. However, the uncertainties in the region have caused the peace implementation council to reverse its earlier decision. The Office of the High Representative mandate has been extended for another year. On several fronts, it believes that Bosnia is failing to make progress. Mostar remains un-unified and the governance of the canton of Brcko remains un-regularised. At the same time, the decision has been made to cut EUFOR numbers from 7,500 to 2,500. Where is the consistency? Perhaps most importantly, the alleged war criminals, General Mladic and Radovan Karadzic remain at large. What role, if any, will the remaining British contingent play in trying to bring those individuals to justice?
	As I said, the High Representative's mandate has been extended for another year, as announced only yesterday, but the current representative, Christian Schwarz-Schilling, has accused Bosnian politicians of squandering the opportunity to make progress. The politicians are failing to make progress, but the troop numbers are being cut. Can the Minister clarify the discrepancy between those two different assessments of Bosnia's stability? If Bosnians are incapable of taking more control of their own affairs at the political level, how can he be confident that they can do that at a military level?
	Unfortunately, there are still some Serbs who believe that all the Serbs should live in a Greater Serbia. That kind of regressive force, which was so destructive for Yugoslavia, cannot be allowed to return to the region. Is the Minister satisfied that those who harbour such ambitions will not find themselves emboldened by the lack of an international military presence in Banja Luka, which has so far served as a deterrent to those aspirations?
	No part of Europe has such a complex ethnic patchwork, such a recent history of instability, or such a strategic importance in the "Great Power" politics of all eras. Can the Minister give his commitment that the withdrawals do not represent a change in policy towards the wider region?
	Let me turn to the military implications. British troops make the primary contribution to mine clearance operations. How will those be conducted in the future, and by whom? What are the implications for the safety of the civilian population?
	More than anything else, there is widespread suspicion that this decision is predicated on the need to free up more troops for the mission in Afghanistan. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister talked about our troops coming home from Iraq with no mention of future deployments to Afghanistan. But within 48 hours, we learned, through a series of leaks, that 1,400 more troops were being sent. On Monday, I specifically asked the Secretary of State for Defence for a commitment that this represented the peak number of British troops to be deployed there. I received no such assurance. I ask the Minister to answer that question specifically today.
	We all want peace in the Balkans, but our faith in the competence of the Government's foreign and defence policy is being sorely tested. We need much better assurances than we have had to date. Yet again, the assessments are too rosy and the assumptions too optimistic, as they have been so often in recent years.

Adam Ingram: I would have thought that we would hear at least some recognition of the success that has been achieved, but I was seriously disappointed by the hon. Gentleman. Let us go back 15 years to when the deployment was first agreed. The commitment given by the then Secretary of State for Defence—the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—was for 12 months. As we know when we enter areas of conflict, we may have to attend to situations that deteriorate, but sometimes they make progress. That is exactly what we have been doing.
	I have been dealing with this issue and hoping to get to this point for almost three years. The assessment in terms of the political dimension must be that a time has to be determined when we have confidence that progress has been made. If I understand the hon. Gentleman's message correctly, he suggests that we need a continuing commitment in Bosnia. At the same time, he says that we should cut commitments elsewhere. We repeatedly ask him which commitments we should not fulfil, and he repeatedly fails to answer the question. Now he is saying that we should continue our commitment when the full international community that has responsibility for that country says that we can move to a new military and security posture to encourage normality to develop.
	I have visited the country and the region on several occasions and I have seen the marked progress. I mentioned the opening of the destruction facility that I attended in November and it is clear that change is happening. There are still issues to be attended to in collecting the ammunition and other equipment that needs to be destroyed, and efforts are being made to achieve that.
	I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman seeks from us. We have made a major military contribution. We have measures of success and an international community that is now supportive of those efforts. All countries involved are making reductions. The hon. Gentleman asks about bringing the war criminals Mladic and Karadzic to justice, and that remains the determined intent of the international community. Pressure will continue to be applied to countries in the region to deliver that intent, and it is one of the preconditions for EU membership and full scale NATO membership.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked how we ensure a response if the situation descends into some form of violence. There will still be 2,500 troops there and we will still have the pan-Balkans operational reserve force ready to act, as we did in 2004 and 2005 in Kosovo, which is a much more volatile environment in many ways. We responded to and dealt with the civil unrest on the streets.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about military implications and future effort. One of the things that we are doing in the country is building the capacity of their defence forces to deal with their own needs. That is why we will keep 50 or so military personnel in the country, several of whom are engaged in training the trainers. We make a tremendous contribution in mine clearance training, and many other areas of training, in countries that are moving from periods of conflict into stability.
	The hon. Gentleman's charge that the withdrawal is just an attempt to free up troops for Afghanistan does not add up. Every country has come to this conclusion. If the conclusion of the international community had been that we should remain there—because his scenario was prevailing—we would have maintained our presence. As in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wherever else we serve, we will not cut and run: we will continue until the job is done.

Tony Lloyd: Contrary to the more than grudging comments from the Opposition, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a tremendous success. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are the ones who say that, not simply foreign politicians. In particular, the people are grateful that the British commitment over the years has meant that the area has moved from active war—not simply insecurity—to a point at which it is possible to say that Bosnia is secure in military terms, whatever the political challenges that undoubtedly still remain.
	Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the actions of our troops over the years? It was the British troops at Prijedor who were the first to arrest war crime indictees, and the British arrested more than did all the other troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina put together. Our contribution has been really significant in changing the face of Bosnia and Herzegovina and we should be proud of what the British troops have done.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a great deal of knowledge of the issue. He makes a substantial point—we have a proud record of achievement and we can hold our head up high. We have led the way in so many ways, in that area and elsewhere, in trying to establish the right standards for countries coming out of conflict into a new future. The whole issue of war criminals is one that still has to be addressed. We have made a contribution in the past, and if we have to make a contribution to achieve that objective in the future, we will do so. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.

Nick Harvey: I thank the Minister for his statement and join him in paying tribute to those who have made a contribution over the past 15 years in Bosnia. In particular, I pay tribute to those who paid with their lives or came back injured.
	Should not the House be celebrating the statement today as a sign of success and a job well done, and congratulating the Minister on being able to make a statement in these terms? He made the point in his statement that at different points in that time UK forces have been part of a UN mission, a NATO mission and, in the last few years, an EU mission. While NATO remains our key strategic alliance, will the Minister join me in noting the success of the EU mission in recent years, and in celebrating the fact that EU nations can act successfully when they see eye to eye on things? If the situation in Kosovo deteriorates, will he reassure the House that there will be a similar readiness among EU countries to work together?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has hit the right note. There is no question but that we should celebrate the success of the EU mission, and we should never forget the work done by its members. Some of them paid the ultimate sacrifice or were injured in their efforts to create the increasingly peaceful environment in the country. The mission started out as a NATO enterprise, then transformed into an EU mission—the first of its kind. I am sure that it will prove to be a model for the future. It demonstrates that the EU nations are increasingly able to deliver in such circumstances, although what the approach to Kosovo will be in the longer term remains to be seen. I hope that we can finish the work with NATO and that we do not have to undertake another extended mission, and I know that the hon. Gentleman shares that objective. Much remains to be done in some parts of the Balkans. We have made a contribution and, when asked, will do so again.

Tom Watson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. The news is very welcome, especially for the families of the brave men and women serving in Bosnia. What lessons for other conflict zones can be learned from the reconstruction effort in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Does he agree that success will be measured in terms of what happens over years and decades, rather than weeks and months?

Adam Ingram: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he makes a very important point about the lessons to be learned. There is a continuum about the way that conflict zones move into reconstruction, but he will know that each area and country has its own key and individual characteristics. In all the regions where British forces are deployed, our aim is to ensure that the momentum of the security profile is maintained, and that efforts to improve governance are begun as early as possible. In that way, confidence is given to the people who take over the instruments of civil power and who drive change forward. The civil community must have the confidence to take on defence and security reform, and to move on from the prevailing hostilities.
	None of that is easy. We must remember that we have been in Northern Ireland for nearly 40 years and that, although we are very close, we still have not quite reached the final stage of the process. All the lessons that we learn from our experiences in such situations make our armed forces personnel even better at dealing with troubles around the world.

Bernard Jenkin: How enthusiastic are the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina about the withdrawal announced today?

Adam Ingram: That is an interesting question. I have met Ministers in a variety of countries, one of whom said, "As long as you're here, people see you as an occupying force. We don't see you that way, but you deny us the opportunity to take on the governance of the country, even though we have the instruments to do so."
	That remark struck home. Today's announcement will receive a mixed response, because some people in Bosnia and Herzegovina depend on our presence: the statistics show that our forces are very much part of the local economy. If people there fear that they might lose out, we must use our EU connections to offer assistance and create a strong economy to fill the gap.
	Earlier, I described how we are working with the 6,000 or so soldiers moving into civilian life. We have a major commitment to making sure that they have jobs and a future, and that they understand that their society has changed. That is a big contribution on our part. Will some local politicians oppose our withdrawal? Yes: we have heard today that not all good news is welcome.

David Winnick: Is this not an appropriate time to remind ourselves of the terrible massacre of Muslim men at Srebrenica in July 1995, which happened while the international community looked on? Should we not be pleased at least that the present Government acted in respect of Kosovo—something that their predecessors did not do in response to what occurred in Bosnia, Srebrenica and elsewhere? However, I am not alone in being deeply disappointed that the two notorious mass murderers responsible for what happened at Srebrenica have not been apprehended. It is absolutely vital that those arch-criminals should be brought to justice.

Adam Ingram: I agree entirely with that final point, and that is why so much effort is still being made in that regard. It is also why conditions are placed on the country's progression towards full EU and NATO membership. We are talking about brutal war criminals who must be brought to justice. In recent weeks, NATO has attempted to apply more pressure to achieve that objective, although I do not suppose that that was much reported in the media here.
	My hon. Friend is also right about the timely action that we took in Kosovo. Some hon. Members criticised it, but it has proved to be the right thing to do. It is a matter for regret that this country did not act earlier in the 1990s. We paid a price for that, but more importantly, the people of Srebrenica and elsewhere paid a much heavier one.

Patrick Cormack: May I echo the Minister's concluding remarks? I was sometimes a lone voice on the then Government Benches when I argued for intervention—something that the official Opposition of the day did not support. I welcome much of what the Minister has said, and want to record my thanks to the brave troops who have done so much to help to restore a degree of normality. However, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the force of some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), and by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has been consistent on this matter? We do not know where in the Balkans those two arch-criminals may be hiding, but until they have been brought to justice, we cannot begin to consider writing the final chapter.

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. Even today, when we see things happening, all of us must ask ourselves, "Is it right to intervene? How do we intervene? If we do go in, do we intervene as part of a UN, NATO or EU force, or as part of a coalition of the willing?"
	The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the war criminals. I repeat that an intense effort is being made to achieve the objective that he set out. If we knew where they were, they would be apprehended and brought to justice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will be aware that today is St. David's day, and that a time-limited debate on Welsh affairs follows this statement. Therefore if I am to call all those who wish to speak on the statement, it would be extremely helpful to have brief questions and concise answers.

David Drew: I very much welcome the statement, and anyone who has visited Bosnia will know how highly people there regard the British troops. However, will my right hon. Friend the Minister say how our forces will help the Bosnian police, whose actions in the build-up to the conflict were a huge problem? Although one would like to think that they have a positive role to play now, they still need support.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I refer him to what I said earlier about the need to encourage countries to move towards normal civil standards, especially in respect of their civilian police forces. There will be an EU police mission of about 170 officers, and Britain will supply 16 representatives. They will not be military police, but civilian officers on secondment. I am sure that they will do a tremendous job, just as they do elsewhere.

Mark Lancaster: Having served in Bosnia and Kosovo before being elected to Parliament, I obviously have an interest in this subject. May I ask a practical question? In recent years, troop numbers have been drawn down by making some troops pan-Balkan, covering both theatres. Will the reduction in the number of troops in Bosnia mean that troop numbers have to go up slightly in Kosovo to make some deployments, such as of engineers, sustainable?

Adam Ingram: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is offering to volunteer for that role. I know that he has particular skills, for which I constantly pay tribute to him. It is an important issue. There is a sizeable NATO force in the area, some 17,000 strong. We have a number of people serving in the Balkans. It is not our intention to increase our presence and, given the size of that NATO force, I do not think that we should do so. Although we will contribute to the reserve forces, which have been deployed on two occasions—2004 and 2005—we have made it clear that there is a mismatch when there are 17,000 personnel in a country and we have to send a battalion to sort out problems on the street. NATO has now addressed that and it has a better operational approach. Circumstances on the ground will dictate whether the reserve force is used.

Denis MacShane: I agree with the comments about Srebrenica. I hope that one day the Ministers responsible for Britain's washing its hands of combating that evil crime will apologise to the nation.
	I visited the Bosnian units of the Army to be with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers unit from my constituency of Rotherham. No one has mentioned the Territorial Army, but it has been rotated through Bosnia and has contributed enormously to the work of the British Army. May I invite my right hon. Friend to comment, on St. David's day of all days, on the ludicrous proposition that the Welsh Guards should stay there in some kind of perpetuity, as the shadow defence spokesman seemed to suggest? It shows how out of touch the Opposition are with the real needs and wishes of our soldiers on the ground.

Adam Ingram: I think that we can say that our Welsh friends in Bosnia will be celebrating today. They have a lot of reason to celebrate—not just their national day but the fact of this announcement. They can take great credit for what they have done.

David Heath: I had the privilege of leading the international election- monitoring mission to Bosnia at the recent elections, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for quoting my positive assessment on behalf of that mission. Whatever the political difficulties that undoubtedly persist in that country, I do not recognise the assessment of the security situation given by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
	There is one outstanding issue—mine and explosive clearance along the old front line that runs close to Sarajevo—and I wonder whether British troops will still be involved in it. About two miles outside the town, huge areas of land still cannot be visited because of the presence of unexploded devices. Will the British Army contribute to that mine clearance operation?

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I am sure that he recognises that, if his assessment and that of the monitoring team had been that the elections were not free and fair, it would have been an indication of some security problems, which would then have adversely impacted on the reduction to which we were moving. So the hon. Gentleman has made a good assessment and has a good feel for the situation.
	I was asked about mine clearance. We will have a 50-strong residual presence—some staff officers and others in a training role. We approach the problem by training people to do the job themselves. We have a key support operations centre based there and we will continue to contribute to it. Increasingly, the defence forces of Bosnia will have to take on that role themselves, and they will do so because they have to remove the poisonous remnants of war if they want to return those bits of the country so affected to some normality.

Chris Bryant: I, too, welcome the statement made by the Minister today, not least because he said in October last year that he hoped to make a statement some time in March, and he has managed to do it on the first day. I wholeheartedly congratulate him.
	There is one outstanding issue. Many British troops who have served in Bosnia have not been able to wear a medal associated with their tour of duty. Has that yet been agreed, and can the delay that often occurs in allowing our troops to wear medals for a tour of duty that comes under a European force be removed?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that I am a Minister who keeps my promises. I am sure that he recognises that all Ministers in this Government keep their promises, not just me.
	I understand that what my hon. Friend believes to be the case about medals is not the case. I will make sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who has responsibility for the matter, writes to him with full information so that he can respond to those who are raising this issue with him.

Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Minister of State on his encouraging statement. I spent a period in Bosnia-Herzegovina, including in Mrkonjic-Grad and Banja Luka, as part of my armed forces parliamentary scheme. Will the Minister pay tribute to the huge contribution that UK forces played in restructuring the country, especially in rural areas, and assisting, including financially and manually, in the re-establishment of commercial and enterprise businesses?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is correct. It is interesting that those who have knowledge of the country welcome the statement. The armed forces parliamentary scheme gives good insight. The hon. Gentleman is also right about the way in which we and the other international missions have recently been out in small numbers in the country in what are called liaison and observation team houses, working with the local community, ensuring that those who wish to return home can do so, and trying to encourage through other agencies the type of economic development that is essential. What is going in is very encouraging. Anyone who has any doubts should visit the country, as the hon. Gentleman has done. I am sure that they will come back with the same positive message.

Hugh Robertson: As someone who commanded the then pretty small British detachment in Sarajevo in 1994 during the siege, may I say how much I welcome the progress that has been made, even though concerns remain. One of the regrettable features of that period was the considerable number of war crimes perpetrated by members of both sides of the conflict in Sarajevo. Much of the attention has concentrated on the Bosnian Serbs, but is the Minister convinced that all the members of the Bosnian Government side who were responsible for war crimes have been properly pursued and brought to justice?

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Although it was some time ago, I recognise that he also understands and welcomes the developments that have taken place. He may have thought that they would happen sooner rather than later, but the very fact that it has taken us 15 years to get to this point shows how difficult the issue is.
	There are residual issues. It is not just the two major war criminals. There are a whole lot of other remnants of the problem. I do not want to draw a direct relationship with Northern Ireland, but this is what happens when a country, part of a country or a region has such tensions, whether they are based on ethnicity or other aspects. One then has to deal with the scale of what is left by seeking reconciliation and building for peace in the future. That is a matter in which the international community can assist, but only the people of that country can find the answers to the problem.

Robert Walter: The EU mission has been conducted under the Berlin-plus arrangements, whereby the operational commander is the deputy supreme commander Europe NATO, General Sir John Reith—a British general. Given that the Minister said that this was a model operation and given that the new head of the EU military staff as of yesterday is General David Leakey, another British general, will the Minister reaffirm the Government's view that Berlin-plus is a model and that it is unnecessary to create a separate military operations and command centre in Brussels?

Adam Ingram: Berlin-plus has proved successful. The international community will always look at what it is doing and ask, "Do we have success? Can we build on that success? Can we improve on it?" This EU mission, which has been a success, will teach us a lot for the future. There were those who argued against the EU—some within NATO and some in the House—because they believed that the EU could not deliver. The EU did deliver and we are where we are today because of that.

Tobias Ellwood: I join in the comments about Rifleman Coffey. I was the platoon commander of his unit in the Royal Green Jackets and his loss will be felt across the regiment. As someone who also served in Bosnia, in Sanski Most and Banja Luka, I cautiously welcome today's statement, but there are lessons to be learned, including those from the break-up of Yugoslavia after the death of the dictator. I believe that avoided a massive civil war in the Balkans, and is something to which we should pay heed with regard to Iraq. There are also lessons in respect of troop numbers. In Bosnia, we had one NATO soldier for every square kilometre; in Afghanistan we have one NATO soldier for every 600 sq km. Does the Minister agree that that is one of the reasons we face so many challenges in Afghanistan?

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to getting us to the position we are in today. Everyone who served made that individual and collective contribution. My understanding is that he advocates the fragmentation and break-up of Iraq, yet he also points out the effects of that and the problems that follow. He needs to square his logic. There is no simple solution that one can lift from the shelf because it worked, or did not work, in a particular place. As I said earlier, we have to learn lessons and to do so we must be realistic and honest. We need to ask whether we can do things better and, if we can, we should do so.

Point of Order

Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the Leader of the House yet again deprecated announcements being made to the press before they are made to the House. However, this morning we read in the newspapers that the Government are to make their response to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body today, so, as the Secretary of State for Defence is in the Chamber, may I ask for your assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a written statement will be given to the House of Commons before any announcement is made to the press today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not in a position to give assurances about how the Government communicate with the House, but Mr. Speaker is on record time and again urging the fullest and highest standard of communication by the Government. I am sure that the Secretary of State heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Welsh Affairs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Liz Blackman.]

Peter Hain: I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the whole House a happy St. David's day, and I am sorry that I shall be unable to attend the end of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) has called for a St. George's day debate, and I shall be happy to wish him a happy St. George's day on the appropriate day.
	This September will mark the 10th anniversary of the momentous night when the people of Wales voted to create a democratically elected National Assembly for Wales, placing decision making in the hands of the people of Wales. The margin of the victory that evening was narrow, but that has not held Wales or the Assembly back. Ten years on, the Assembly has firmly established itself as the voice of the people in Wales. It has earned respect as a centre of innovative policy making, and as it has grown in strength, stature and self-confidence, so, too, has Wales as a whole.
	There can be no doubt that Wales is going in the right direction, with a record number of jobs, massive investment in schools and hospitals and a successful Welsh economy. Yes, there are challenges ahead, but the choice facing Wales is how we build on the success of the past 10 years, rather than going back to the failure before then.
	The challenge facing Wales is increasingly global. The enlargement of the European Union and the dramatic growth of emerging economies such as China and India is leading to rapid and sometimes unnerving changes in the world economy, but it is creating opportunities, too.
	China and India are producing more university graduates each year than the whole of Europe, so competition is increasingly coming not just from low wage costs in their manufacturing industries but from the higher tech, knowledge-based sectors. It is, therefore, more important than ever to harness and build on the huge talents of the people of Wales and to place an ever greater focus on quality and excellence, with everyone who is able to work being assisted with the skills upgrading and training they need to work.
	Boosting skills is the key. It means more than simply ensuring that a higher proportion of our young people go into further and higher education. That is only the bare minimum. How can we compete with countries such as South Korea, where 40 per cent. of 25 to 34-year-olds have a degree or equivalent?

Stephen Crabb: The Secretary of State makes an important point. Has he had the chance to read  The Western Mail this morning? It states that more than half all adults in Wales have poor numeracy skills and one in four has a reading and writing age of 11 or below. Does not that highlight the scale of the challenge facing Wales and the poor performance of the past 10 years, not success, as the Secretary of State likes to think?

Peter Hain: It highlights the fact that there is still a gap to be bridged. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the challenge ahead, but the way to bridge that gap and improve on the improvements of the past 10 years, when there have been considerable increases in numeracy and literacy rates and in educational standards generally, is to invest more in education. The only way to invest more in education is by re-electing Labour in Westminster and in Cardiff Bay.

Stephen Crabb: indicated dissent.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the Conservatives are committed to a programme of cuts in Labour's investment plans.
	When the hon. Gentleman referred to  The Western Mail, I thought he would tell me that the Welsh Conservatives are changing their policy in favour of proportional representation in local government, as they are now proposing. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) agrees with the Welsh Conservative leader, Nick Bourne, who advocates that policy. It is an interesting part of their preparation for coalition, as the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru already favour that policy.

David Davies: Does the Secretary of State recall writing an excellent book advancing the case against proportional representation? I have read it and I can commend it to the House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, too, will commend that to colleagues on both sides of the Welsh Assembly.

Peter Hain: It is a brilliant book—I am glad that it is on the hon. Gentleman's reading list and I hope he keeps it by his bed—and that is why we shall not be going down that road in local government. Our Welsh manifesto will contain a commitment not to introduce proportional representation in local government.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being extremely generous so early on in his speech.
	I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Conservative manifesto has not yet been published, so any leaks are not worth the paper they are written on. Furthermore, he is on dangerous ground, as from time to time documents that he claims are inaccurate are leaked from his office. If they are inaccurate, so, too, are those published in  The Western Mail today.

Peter Hain: I am sorry that the hon. Lady rubbishes  The Western Mail, as it is an excellent newspaper and I shall quote from it. It refers to
	"a draft of the manifesto, which is understood to contain a commitment to PR in local government".

Cheryl Gillan: indicated dissent.

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I think her argument is with the Welsh Conservative leader, Nick Bourne, as he clearly favours that policy.

John Smith: My right hon. Friend's analysis of the challenges facing Wales in a global market is right, but does he agree that the construction of a military training academy at St. Athan in my constituency will provide the very skills that he is talking about and that Wales needs for the future?

Peter Hain: Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right and I pay tribute to his championing of the cause of the defence training review establishment in St. Athan. More than 5,000 jobs and investment of £16 billion will regenerate not just that area but the wider community in the valleys and surrounding areas— [ Interruption. ] I am being heckled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), but I have a series of quotes, which I shall gladly read, showing how Plaid Cymru opposed the role of the defence forces in Wales. Indeed, the party's president said that all defence establishments should clear out of Wales. There would be a massive cost to jobs in Wales, including at the defence training review establishment at St. Athan, because we should have to send back that decision to the Ministry of Defence.

David Davies: rose—

Peter Hain: I cannot resist allowing the hon. Gentleman to support me.

David Davies: I will indeed support the Secretary of State on this point. Does he agree that it was absolutely disgraceful that senior members of Plaid Cymru demanded that the military be kept out of schools, when the military offers an excellent base for young people who want to learn the specialist skills that he mentioned? Does he agree that we should all support our armed forces in this country?

Peter Hain: I am always reluctant to agree with the hon. Gentleman, because it makes me wonder whether the position that I am taking is correct, but I have to say that he is absolutely right. What also interests me is the fact that the parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), signed an early-day motion in November opposing the entire defence review programme, and with it the jobs in Wales. I assume that the Plaid Cymru candidate in the Vale of Glamorgan is going to campaign on a programme of "Send the jobs back, repatriate the defence training rationalisation investment, and have a fresh decision in London."

Adam Price: The Secretary of State knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) signed that motion—as did many Labour Members—because we oppose the principle of privatisation. I was asked to support the consortium bid on behalf of Plaid Cymru and we gladly did so, because it was meant to have cross-party, all-Wales support. To say that Plaid Cymru did not support the consortium is factually incorrect.

Peter Hain: I concede that the hon. Gentleman took that stance, but I do not see how he can reconcile that with the clear statement from his party president, Dafydd Iwan, which opposes any defence investment and activity in Wales.

Chris Ruane: A free Welsh army.

Peter Hain: Except for the free Welsh army, as my hon. Friend says in his inimitable way.
	We must encourage lifelong learning, whereby skills can be improved and updated throughout people's working lives, allowing workers to move more easily between companies and sectors and making them better equipped to deal with change.

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend applaud Airbus, which, even in the current difficulties, is moving ahead with its apprentice recruitment programme? Earlier this week, there were 2,500 young people looking to further their careers. Is that not a good example that many other employers in Wales should follow?

Peter Hain: Airbus UK, and especially its plant at Broughton, which is the biggest manufacturing centre in the United Kingdom, if not in Europe, sets a standard of excellence for all. It is important that we recognise that the difficulties to which my hon. Friend referred are, as I understand it, going to drive forward Airbus to even greater success in the future as the premier airline manufacturer across the world—especially in competition with Boeing. It is important to put it on the record that the job cuts that, regrettably, have had to be made over the coming four years are in relation to overhead costs, not engineering, production or manufacturing costs, where Airbus expects to expand its production. As part of a decision taken at a European level, there will be extra work to do with wing manufacture, which was previously carried out in facilities in mainland Europe. That is good news for Airbus.

Lembit �pik: Does the Secretary of State agree that Airbus has been quite good at keeping in contact with the various political representatives and that it can be assured of cross-party support if it experiences difficulties? I think that all Welsh MPs in the Chamber today recognise the crucial importance of the high-value manufacturing and design jobs that Airbus brings to Wales and that help us to remain at the forefront of the international initiative for aerospace development.

Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Airbus has received, and I am sure will continue to receive, cross-party support because it is the real jewel in the crown of the north-east Wales economy and, in many respects, of the Welsh economy as a whole.
	At the same time, Wales must adapt to the huge and growing threat of climate changethe defining challenge of this era and beyond, which puts at risk the very future of humankind. It is predicted that global average temperatures could rise by 5.8 C and sea levels by up to 7.7 m by 2100. As the Stern review highlighted, the impacts of climate change will be economic as well as environmental. Unless urgent action is taken the impact could equate to 5 per cent. of global wealth, rising to 20 per cent. once the terrible human costs are taken into account. The imperative to cut our emissions is therefore not just moral and political, but economic.
	Allied to climate change is the challenge of energy security. Over the next 15 years, we will lose 30 per cent. of our generating capacity, as ageing coal and nuclear plants reach the end of their lives. We face a huge energy gap, which must be bridged while curbing emissions and reducing our dependence on imported energy from dangerous and unstable parts of the world. We therefore need a huge push to increase our proportion of energy from renewable sources. Wales is already a major centre within the United Kingdom for onshore wind. With the North Hoyle wind farm, the first major offshore wind farm in Britain, and the proposal for a vast new north Wales offshore wind development at Gwynt-y-Mor, which would power up to 40 per cent. of Welsh homes, we can become a centre for offshore wind too.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, because this is obviously a matter of great concern to both of us, particularly in the light of the statistics that were published today that show that emissions in Wales were higher in 2004 than in 1990. Would he care to comment on those statistics and lay out his vision for how we are going to reduce emissions in Wales in the future?

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady is right, but she ought also to bear in mind that we had huge growth in Wales over that period. Growth across the United Kingdom has been nearly 28 per cent., whereas emissions have gone up in single figures. They should not have gone up at all, but the fact that they have gone up by such a small proportion, compared with growth, shows that we are going in the right direction. We have to do more. The climate change levy, which was opposed by her party, is an important part of that, as is the drive towards renewable energy. I hope that she will have a word with her boss, the Leader of the Opposition, and ask him to change his mind about the Gwynt-y-Mor wind farm development. I do not know what the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) thinks about it. The development would involve 250 turbines and would have the capacity to power the electricity needs of 40 per cent. of Welsh homes. It is an important project and I hope that it will get all-party support.
	Marine, tidal and other renewable energies also offer enormous potential. The proposal for a Severn barrage, which is currently being assessed by the Sustainable Development Commission, could provide up to 5 per cent., and perhaps more, of Britain's entire electricity needsall of it from a clean, green, renewable source. It is an excellent project and I hope that the go-ahead will be signalled in the forthcoming energy White Paper, following an assessment by the Sustainable Development Commission. The project will rely on private sector investmentI have met the consortium behind itbut it will need Government support in respect of planning and other arrangements. I hope that it goes ahead, because it will be a flagship project that will mean that Britain, and Wales, is serious about the renewable energy agenda.

Lembit �pik: Although I agree with the Secretary of State that we should utilise the energy available from the Severn estuary, does he agree that we must not yet dismiss the alternative possibility of tidal lagoons? It is possible that they might even produce more energy than a barrage. I am not asking him to commit to one or the other, but I would like him at least to keep the door open when it comes to the dialogue that we initiated at a Welsh Grand Committee, so that we can make a comparison between the two alternatives.

Peter Hain: I am all in favour of a comparison to get the best option, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will findthis is the advice that I have receivedthat the barrage is a significantly better prospect and, in many ways, will intrude less on the estuary, whether we are thinking about shipping or boating life, or wildlife. It also offers the opportunity of a transport linkperhaps a rail linkacross to Devon, which could offer big opportunities for Cardiff airport, for example, to act as a gateway into the skies for the south-west and could allow more people to travel to south Wales more easily to see its beauty and to enjoy the excellence of its cities, such as Cardiff and Swansea.

Paul Flynn: Is it not true that the most effective, long-term solution to renewable energy for Wales is marine power? However, it would have to be introducedeither with a barrage, lagoons, or millsin combination with a pump storage facility so that water could be pumped up at the off-peak hours to any of the hills in Wales, where the topography is absolutely right for that, and allowed to run down to generate energy at peak hours. A combination of tidal power and pump storage would be a fine solution and the most effective solution for Wales.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a pump storage facility and a hydro-electric project, which is also important, in north Wales. I think that Wales could lead the world in green, clean energy, and I hope that we do.

Roger Williams: Before the Secretary of State moves on from renewable energy perhaps he could reflect on the role that bio-energy can play in replacing fossil fuels and the role that Wales can play in producing those biofuels, particularly biomass. A group of farmers in south-west Wales would like to supply the Bluestone project with heat, but at the moment Welsh farmers, unlike English farmers, do not have the benefit of grants to help with the high costs of establishing such crops. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could make representations to the Minister in the Assembly on that matter.

Peter Hain: I shall certainly be happy to look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman as a result of my inquiries. I agree that biomass and bio-crops for fuel purposes have enormous potential, and Wales ought to go for that. Farmers have the potential, using wind and other environmentally friendly energy sources, to diversify their businesses and gain benefits. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Bluestone. It is a fantastic project and environmentally very sound, and this could add to it.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the changes that we will introduce, which have already been signalled, to ensure that there is less scope for nimbyism which is rife in the United Kingdom, not least in Walesto block renewable energy projects. We need to be serious about renewable energy, and that means supporting all the different forms that have been described in the debate so fartidal, marine current, wind and biomass. If we are not serious, the only future is a nuclear one.

Hywel Williams: Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to whether a derogation from European regulations regarding wildlife would be required for the Severn barrage? If so, is it the Government's intention to seek such a derogation?

Peter Hain: That is among the issues being considered in assessing the viability of the project. The hon. Gentleman asks a legitimate question, but I hope that it does not signal opposition to the barrage. There will in future be no wildlife in the Severn estuaryor pretty well anywhere elseif we are not careful, and if climate-changing emissions continue on their upward trajectory and wreak their devastation.

Lembit �pik: I very much agree with the Secretary of State that we have to make decisions now about renewable and sustainable energy, but does he accept that one of the problems in the original roll-out of wind turbines in Wales was that it was done with scant regard for local community concern? Is he aware that a cross-party group has been working on Tan 8 plus, as it has been called, to see whether we can build in community concerns to balance the environmental requirements that he has already outlined?

Peter Hain: Of course we need to take account of community concerns, and nobody wants to see Wales carpeted with wind farms, but there has to be a recognition of the strategic importance of renewable energy projects. People often say to me, We don't like wind power. Let's go for tidal power. Any time anybody proposes siting a tidal project off a beach, there is massive opposition from local people. People have to decide where they stand on this matter. We are heading towards a much more strategic planning system, which can bypass such nimbyism.
	For the information of the House, I can say that, in terms of the energy that would be produced, the Severn barrage project is equivalent to literally covering Wales with wind farms, so it is a very important project.
	With enough support, Wales could become a world leader in renewable technologies, with huge potential also for jobs and business growth, so the impetus for urgent action makes not only environmental sense but economic and employment sense, too. I am therefore very encouraged that Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Environment, Planning and the Countryside, recently announced that all new buildings in Wales should be zero-carbon by 2011another excellent policy from the Welsh Assembly Labour Government.

Stephen Crabb: Although I in no way want to downplay the moral obligation of the United Kingdom to do our bit to tackle climate change, is the Secretary of State aware that to make a serious difference in tackling global emissions, we need to see action in countries such as China, India and Brazil? What role does he think Wales can play, given our history of coal production, in helping countries such as China and India, which are adding huge amounts of coal-fired electricity generating capacity every month, to develop clean-coal solutions that will make a difference to climate change in the longer term?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I support him in it. With China opening a new coal-fired power station every weekone a weekits contribution to global emissions will dwarf anything that we are able to do about it. However, what lies behind his question is a great opportunity for Wales in, for example, exporting our clean-coal technology and renewable energy experience so that we can get a much more balanced energy policy in China and other countries, including India and Brazil, to which he referred.
	In Wrexham in north Wales, Sharp has recently announced that it is doubling production of photovoltaic solar panels at its Wrexham plant, making it one of the largest such facilities in the world, and very welcome in terms of local employment, too. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for the way in which he has supported that company in its growth.
	So much has changed since Labour's historic election victory of 1997 that it is worth remembering exactly what Wales was like at that time, after 18 years of Conservative rule. Thousands of jobs had been lost, a generation of young people had been thrown on the scrapheap with no chance of employment or access to education and training, and whole communities had been devastated by the rundown of local industries. Children were being taught in crowded classrooms; thousands of people were waiting more than 12 months for in-patient treatment; and crime had doubled. Mortgage rates, bankruptcies and inflation soared as the economy endured the worst two recessions since the second world war.
	Wales was also governed by Tory Secretaries of State from English constituencies, like governor-generals, with little knowledge or understanding of our needs, and the same fate awaits Wales if the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham gets into my job in a future Conservative Government, if there ever is one.  [Interruption.] Indeed, the hon. Lady would be a governess-general of Wales.
	Now, in 2007, with Labour, Wales is heading in the right direction, going from strength to strength. Employment is at record levels, with 133,000 more jobs and 37,000 fewer unemployed than in 1997. Private sector output is up for the 46th( )month in a row. Major international companies such as Airbus, Logica CMG, Sharp, Toyota, EADS, General Dynamics, Ford and Cogent are thriving in Wales and competing successfully in global markets. As the recent announcement of the 16 billion investment in the defence training academy at St. Athan demonstrates, people now know that Wales can do it.
	Investment in the health service is now more than 1,600 per person, double what it was under the Tories. As a result, we have more than 500 more consultants and more than 8,000 more qualified nurses in Wales alone. From 1 April, Welsh Labour's landmark policy of free prescriptions for everyone in Wales will come into force, giving particular help to those on low incomes with chronic illnesses who are currently deterred from finding jobs by the cost of their prescriptions. From 2 April, another landmark Welsh Labour policy will come into force: the ban on smoking in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces, three months ahead of England, protecting workers from second-hand smoke.
	In our schools, class sizes are down, with 1,700 more teachers than in 1998, and 5,700 more school support staff. Since 2002, more than 100 million a year has been invested in school buildings, and that figure is now up to 150 million a year. Welsh Labour's policy of free breakfasts in primary schools, introduced in community first areas from September 2004, has now been rolled out throughout Wales, with more than 600 schools now signed up.
	More young people are going on to higher education, and there are many more apprenticeships. Thousands of people who were previously in long-term unemployment, many of them lone parents or disabled, now have the opportunity of employment. Crime is down by a third, and 1,000 more police officers, 1,200 more police support staff, and more than 380 additional community support officersthe figure will rise to 700 later this yearhave been introduced under Labour. There are 422 antisocial behaviour orders in Wales, which were introduced by a Labour Government in the face of opposition from many Opposition parties. Antisocial behaviour orders are making Wales safer, despite the opposition of the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Liberal Democrats.
	Some 50,000 children have been taken out of poverty, with the help of tax credits and increases in child benefit. Child poverty rates in Wales, once among the worst in Britain, have been brought into line with those in the rest of the country.  [Interruption.] Of course there is more to do, but if we consider the miserable Tory record, we have made fantastic progress. Over 220,000 working families with children in Wales now receive nearly 3,000 per year, on average, in tax credits. The 30,000 children born each year in Wales benefit from the child trust fund, which was denounced by the Liberal Democrats as a gimmick. Older people in Wales are better off under Labour, with more than 160,000 low-income pensioners having their incomes boosted by about 30 a week or more under Labour's pension credit. More than 469,000 households in Wales will benefit from automatic winter fuel payments of at least 200something denied them under the Tories.
	Free television licences for over-75s are given to about 190,000 pensioner households in Wales, and as a result of the Government's Pensions Bill, re-linking the state pension with earnings, about 589,000 pensioners in Wales will benefit. Welsh Labour's policy of free bus passes for older people and those with disabilities, pioneered in Wales and now being copied throughout the United Kingdom, benefits 530,000 people. Once again, Welsh Labour has led the way.
	The Labour Government introduced, for the first time in our history, a statutory national minimum wage. It has been increased by 40 per cent. since its introduction, has been extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, and benefits an estimated 70,000 low-paid workers in Wales, the overwhelming majority of whom are women. We have ended the two-tier work force, repealed Tory anti-union laws and introduced new rights for part-timers, for holidays, and for maternity and paternity pay. As a result of Labour's Government of Wales Act 2006, Wales will have additional law-making powers from May this year, with the prospect of full primary powers in future, subject to the approval of the people of Wales in a referendum.

David Davies: Shocking!

Peter Hain: There speaks the true voice of Welsh conservatismopposed to devolution and to more powers for Wales. The tremendous progress that Wales has made is due in no small measure to the leadership of Labour's First Minister, Rhodri Morgan. Rhodri is a unique character, and everyone in Wales seems to be on first-name terms with him. He towers over the rag-bag collection of Opposition politicians who aspire to replace him. Together with his Assembly Cabinet team, he has helped to put Wales back on the right track, and has laid the foundations for future success.
	The progress that we have made owes a huge amount to the strength of the partnership between London and Cardiff since the creation of the Assembly. The jobs, and the investment in our schools and hospitals, were only possible because the Government in London and the Assembly Government in Cardiff are committed to working together in the interests of Wales. The 16 billion investment at St. Athan is just the latest example of the phenomenal results that we can achieve if Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom work together in the United Kingdom. Partnership is the key to our success, and we abandon it at our peril. All that goes to show that a small, clever country such as Wales can be world-class, but only if it is outward-looking and responds to global challenges, not if it is isolated, inward-looking, and retreating into a backward parochialism and separatism.
	Working with strategic national and international partners is vital to Wales's continued prosperity. Wales can respond fully to global challenges only if the United Kingdom and Wales work together and act in partnership. That is the key to success, both for the UK at large and for Wales in particular. Wales benefits from being part of the UK, and the UK benefits from Wales.

Roger Williams: The financial link between Wales and the UK is the Barnett formula, but on 21 February, the Prime Minister said that the Labour Government would adhere strictly to that formula, even though its author says that it is past its sell-by date and is outdated. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he supports the Prime Minister on that point, or will Wales get the funds appropriate to its needs, and not just to the number of people who live there?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but his difficulty is that spending per head in Wales is significantly higher than it is in England. That is the dilemma that he faces. If we open up the Pandora's box of the Barnett formula, it is not clear that Wales would do better as a result, so I urge caution on him. That is why we have no plans to change the way in which the Barnett formula distributes the Welsh block to the people of Wales.
	The contribution that Wales made to Britain's industrial development was a significant factor in our becoming a world power. Welsh manufacturers such as Airbus are the jewel in the industrial crown of the United Kingdom as a whole, and not just Wales. As a result of the partnership within the UK, Wales benefits from public investments that are almost 1,000 per head greater than those in England. The Union is, of course, much more than merely an economic arrangement. Personal and family connections are stronger than ever before, with more Welsh people living in England, and more English people living in Wales, than at any point in our history. Institutions that define Britishness show us what we have achieved together. The national health service was created by a proud son of Wales, Nye Bevan. The BBC is home to many great Welsh broadcasters and great Welsh productions, such as Doctor Who and Torchwood. Those institutions show how deeply Britishness is ingrained in our shared values, and how Wales has helped to define Britishness. As part of the UK, Wales has clout and influence on the world stage, but in the event of separation, we would be nigh-on irrelevant.
	Despite that, the partnership from which we benefit is under threat. Reckless Conservative policies, such as English MPs voting for English laws, would not just consign Welsh MPs to second-class status in Parliament, but would consign the people of Wales to second-class status in the United Kingdom, and so encourage separation. Through narrow party political opportunism, the Tories are working hand in glove with the nationalists and threatening the break-up of the United Kingdom.
	What future would people from the Celtic nations see in the United Kingdom if they were barred from full citizenship? What advantage would the people of Wales see in the Union if they were denied proper representation as equals in Parliament? Most dangerously, that reckless Conservative proposal would generate constitutional chaos at the heart of the United Kingdom Government. With different parties holding different majorities on English issues and on UK issues, who would form the Government: the party with the British majority, or the party with the English majority? The reality is that the Government of Britain would become the Government of England. Wales, Scotland, and presumably Northern Ireland, would be denied a voice.

Adam Price: I share the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for keeping the Tories out of power, both here and in Cardiff Bay. If Labour fails to win an outright majority, and the only way of ensuring a Tory-free Government in Cardiff Bay and the Assembly is to form a coalition with my party, would he be prepared to accept that as the lesser of two evils?

Peter Hain: My direct answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we are campaigning for a majority Welsh Labour Government. As he has provoked me on that point, perhaps I might give a few quotes from his party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru in the Welsh Assembly, Ieuan Wyn Jones, said in an interview:
	I am perfectly prepared to lead a governmentan alternative government to Labourin the National Assembly.
	When the interviewer asked him whether that would be a coalition Government, he replied:
	I am perfectly willing to do that.
	The only conceivable Opposition that Ieuan Wyn Jones wants to lead, as he told The Politics Show on BBC Wales on 10 December, is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat-Plaid Cymru coalition. That is the only alternative to Welsh Labour. After denying on Dragon's Eye on BBC Wales on 22 February 2007 that Plaid Cymru would ever enter a Tory-led coalition, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy was challenged to rule it out categorically. His reply was very interesting:
	We will keep our options open...We will have to see what happens after the elections in May.

Cheryl Gillan: rose

Peter Hain: If the hon. Lady provokes me, I shall happily cite Conservative views to support the fact that there is a conspiracy between the Opposition parties to create a grand coalition in opposition to Welsh Labour. I shall come on to that in a minute.

Cheryl Gillan: I am happy to intervene on the Secretary of State, who has been talking a lot of rubbish. We are the only party that wants to keep the United Kingdom as a united kingdom, and we want to make sure that there is a strong Wales within a strong United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State comment on his call for the expenses of Assembly Members elected by proportional representation to be cut, because their job is easier? I believe that he was suggesting that we have two classes of politician in Wales.

Peter Hain: The comparison is not relevant, but as the hon. Lady has asked me about the matter, I will say that I do not believe that list Members should be able to set up constituency offices in constituencies in which Assembly Members have been elected to do constituency work which is also undertaken by Members of Parliament. It is a matter for the Assembly: I was simply expressing my own view. As the hon. Lady has intervened to raise a matter originally raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr, may I offer her some Conservative views on the question of a Tory-led coalition? Nick Bourne, the Welsh Tory leader, said on 6 October 2006:
	There are discussions going on, of course there are, on an informal basis between parties about what is going to happen after the next election.
	I can offer the hon. Lady other quotes if she provokes me even further.

Cheryl Gillan: rose

Peter Hain: She is going to provoke meexcellent.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not intend to provoke the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to develop his logic. As he thinks that list Members should not have the right to set up offices or receive expenses at the same level as Members elected on a first-past-the-post basis, I assume that he thinks that Members of Parliament who represent Welsh constituencies, some of whose responsibilities have been given to Wales, should not be paid on a par with English Members who retain all their responsibilities in the House.

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady is getting into treacherous waters. We are all equally elected in the House to represent our constituents. The burden of the Tory argument, although they never mention itI wonder whyis to turn Welsh, Scottish and, presumably, Northern Irish MPs into second-class MPs, who would be denied an equal status in votes on matters that affect Parliament. List Members have equal status, voting and representative rights in the National Assembly, but they do not have the same constituency obligations. Why should they be on the same level as constituency Members? I am just expressing a personal opinion. It is not a matter for me, as it will be determined by Standing Orders and the subsequent protocol in the National Assembly for Wales.
	Ten years after the people of Wales voted for devolution, there can be no doubt that Wales is going in the right direction. The spectre of industrial decline, unemployment and run-down public services that haunted Wales throughout the 1980s and 1990s has vanished. In its place, we have a vibrant and diverse economy. There are a record number of jobs, with 10 years of continuing growthnever before achieved in our history as a nationand public services are going from strength to strength. The choice is whether we continue with the economic stability, the partnership with Westminster and the public investment that have enabled Wales to be such a success story over the past 10 years, or whether we cast those advantages aside and risk all that we have achieved by placing Wales's destiny in the hands of a Tory-led coalition. The plans for such a coalition are well laid. Nick Bourne, the Conservative leader in the Assembly

Cheryl Gillan: A great man.

Peter Hain: I am sure that the hon. Lady will approve of his remarks. He said:
	it is unrealistic to expect us to win an overall majority. In these circumstances, we and other non-Labour parties should be prepared to be pragmatic and work with others to achieve an agreed programme.
	Just as we heard earlier the voice of the Welsh Nationalist leader in the Assembly, so we hear from the Welsh Conservative leader a prediction of his intention to form a coalition against Welsh Labour if it does not secure a majority. That is the choice for the people of Wales. The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), far from denouncing that unholy alliance with the separatists, has said that he would
	let Nick Bourne and his team decide.
	The leader of the Welsh Conservatives is preparing to align his party with separatists and nationalists in Wales, which is a significant move.

Adam Price: rose

Peter Hain: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is going to confirm that. I look forward to reminding him of other things that Plaid Cymru leaders have said.

Adam Price: Speaking of unholy alliances, will the Secretary of State clarify his earlier comment, and confirm that he was not ruling out a coalition between his party and mine after the election?

Peter Hain: I am ruling it out. There is no prospect of that at all. It is a matter for Rhodri Morgan and Welsh Labour Assembly Members, but I do not think that Welsh Labour would accept it. We shall leave the nationalists to get into bed with the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, if that is what they want to do after the election and if the opportunity arises.
	The risk of a Tory-led coalition, or a Tory-Plaid Cymru-Liberal Democrat coalition in any guise, would have enormous consequences for Wales. There would be a huge risk to the record jobs and prosperity delivered under Labour; a huge risk to continuing investment in schools and health delivered under Labour; a huge risk to Wales continuing to go in the right direction, as it has done under Labour; a huge risk for businesses, families, children, older people and sick people; and a huge risk for all the people of Wales. If the chaotic infighting and division that we witnessed during last December's budget fiasco were repeated in a Tory-led coalition Government, a cloud of uncertainty and instability would be cast over Wales. With such an atmosphere of risk, investors who flock to Wales would be driven away. Jobs that are now at a record high would disappear. Wales cannot afford to run such a huge risk.
	That huge risk comes not just from voting for the Conservatives, but from voting for Plaid Cymru, for the Liberal Democrats, and, indeed, from staying at home. Over the past 18 months, we have witnessed a dress rehearsal for a Tory-led coalition in the Assembly. Week in, week out, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the independents vote with the Tories to defeat the Welsh Labour Assembly Government. It is a short step from chaotic coalition in opposition to chaotic coalition in government. No wonder Plaid Cymru is trying to silence anyone who talks about its plans to join a Tory-led coalition, but its attempts to gag Welsh Labour and prevent us from talking about Plaid's dodgy backroom deals with the Tories will not succeed. No amount of bluster can conceal the fact that Plaid Cymru is plotting to enter a Tory-led coalition. The leader of Plaid Cymru in the Assembly, Ieuan Wyn Jones, has even said, as I reported earlier, that he is perfectly prepared to lead an alternative coalition Government.

Hywel Williams: Will the Secretary of State confirm for the record that the agreement on the budget was made between his party and our party? It was not made between the Tories and us, between the Liberal Democrats and us, or between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. It was a Plaid Cymru-Labour agreement on the budget.

Peter Hain: If that was the case, why did Plaid Cymru Assembly Members not vote for it? That is the question that the hon. Gentleman must answer. I notice

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is turning into a hustings, rather than a debate on Welsh affairs, in which many hon. Members are waiting to participate. I suggest we steer back on to a straighter course.

Peter Hain: Perish the thought that we might have our eye on the elections on 3 May, or that we might be saying anything from the Dispatch Box or elsewhere that has any connection with 3 May or the events afterwards.

Albert Owen: What the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) failed to say is that the Plaid Cymru Assembly group did not even vote on the Budget. They did not have the guts. They did not back the budget or oppose it, but used the opportunity to say that they supported some measures and did not support others.

Peter Hain: That is correct. To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, I remind the House that the previous week, the Plaid Cymru group talked for a few hours about forming an alternative GovernmentPlaid, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Then it all fell apart. That is the prospect for Wales that I am warning about.

Lembit �pik: I believe it is in order in a Welsh affairs debate to request an important clarification. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Government asked Plaid Cymru to abstain on the vote in question?

Peter Hain: I have no idea about those discussions. I would expect any Assembly Member who claims credit for a budget going through the Assembly, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon has just done on behalf of his party, to have had the guts to vote for it.
	Far from denying that he would put the Tories back into government, Ieuan Wyn Jones, the Plaid Cymru leader, is putting himself forward as Plaid's answer to Ramsay MacDonald. So let there be no doubt that the groundwork for a Tory-led coalition in Wales has been laid, and sanctioned from the very top, with the Leader of the Opposition giving Nick Bourne his full supporta Faustian pact between the Tories and the separatists, selling the soul of Wales for power and for office.
	The only way to stop that happening is for the people of Wales on 3 May to support continued partnership between Wales and Westminster with Welsh Labour and Rhodri Morgan in the leadership. A vote for Plaid Cymru will be a vote to put the Tories in power. A vote for the Liberal Democrats will be a vote to put the Tories in power. But if people vote Labour, they will get Labour.  [Interruption.] The choice is between continued economic stability and record public investment under Labour, and a Tory-led coalition running our schools and hospitals. I am confident that the people of Wales will not put their future at risk, or put at risk the progress of the past 10 years. With strong leadership, partnership and hard work, Wales is continuing to head in the right direction, building a better Wales under Labour.

Cheryl Gillan: I feel as though I am intruding in a private family spat between Plaid Cymru and Labour. The Secretary of State clearly has not got his facts right, but it is good to welcome him to the Dispatch Box. I am glad that he has managed to take time off from his busy campaigning scheduleI hope every Labour Member has noticed his campaign to be Deputy Prime Ministerand time off from his Aga to join us and make a guest appearance. So little does he ever mention Wales these days, preferring to be referred to as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that I believe that on Sunday Andrew Marr described him in his interview as the former Welsh Secretary.
	This could well be the right hon. Gentleman's last St. David's day debate as Secretary of State for Wales. I, for one, wish him all success with his deputy leadership campaign, as he would certainly be much easier on the eye than the present incumbent. It is so good that the Secretary of State has managed to come to this country from abroad and make his way up to the position that he currently holds. We wish him success in his bid.
	Much as I expected, the right hon. Gentleman has not missed the opportunity of the St. David's day debate to mount his usual ranting attack on our party but, as he said, the Assembly elections will be a bare-knuckle fight with the Tories. We are obviously considered to have made so much progress that in his view we are the main protagonists. Even the Prime Minister believes that the Conservative party has something to offer the people of Wales, as he mentioned my party no fewer than 30 times last weekend.
	There is no doubt that the Labour party is running scared from a comprehensive and cohesive campaign that is being run by my colleagues, the Welsh Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly. We are too familiar with the Secretary of State's biased view of Conservative history, which he dealt us again today. He seems to have a fixation with using facts that are 10 years out of date. He does that to try to divert attention from his party's inadequate performance. I doubt that the electors in Wales will see his record in quite the same rosy light as he has painted today.
	Today is a day for Welsh people to celebrate their culture and identity. I am therefore proud that my party's support for the Welsh language is well recognised and generally appreciated. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the Welsh Language Act 1993, which has led to the great renaissance in the use of Welsh, and set up the Welsh language TV station S4C. Both those achievements have secured our Welsh culture and identity for many generations to come. We all owe a debt of gratitude particularly to my noble Friend Lord Roberts, who even today continues to play a pivotal role in our party on Welsh affairs.
	I also recall the tremendous role that Conservatives played in the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage and the resulting regeneration, which none of us can deny and which we all welcome. It is so conveniently forgotten by the First Minister, who opposed the barrage tooth and nail at the time, and I believe that he was not the only member of the Labour party to do so.
	However, I am not ungenerous [Interruption.] No, I am not ungenerous, and I am sure the Secretary of State and his party, like us, has the best interests of Wales at heart. The trouble is that he and the Labour party have failed to deliver at a time when they have held the reins of power in both Westminster and Cardiff Bay, and now there is no place to hide.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady has run out of things that the Conservatives did for Wales. That was her whole list, was it not? They did something for Cardiff, and they made everybody in the Rhondda watch Welsh television instead of being able to watch Channel 4. Is there anything else that she thinks the Tories might have done for the valleys of south Wales?

Cheryl Gillan: I do not need to answer that attack from the hon. Gentleman. This is the same Member who attacked the First Minister, claiming that his NHS policy encourages patients to turn to the private sector. He added that the political cosiness in Wales may mean poorer public services for his constituents. This is a man who criticises his own party as much as I criticise them.

David Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Cheryl Gillan: I will.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, may I say to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that I am hearing far too much from him from a sedentary position? That is not the traditional role of a Parliamentary Private Secretary.

David Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that we owe a great debt to the last Conservative Government for all their much-appreciated work building the heads of the valley road and the other major links between the valleys and Cardiff, which enabled all sorts of high-tech manufacturing industries to go there and created a large number of jobs?

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that. Perhaps we should also remind the Secretary of State of the Welsh Development Agency and what it has done for Wales, and of the largest hospital building programme under the Conservatives in Wales.

Chris Bryant: rose

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to make a speech. The Secretary of State spoke for a long time. I intend to be briefer and more to the point, but I give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Let me remind her of the real legacy in constituencies such as mine in the Rhonddanot a single road built from the valleys down into Cardiff by the Conservatives, the mines closed, and 30 per cent. of the population of working age in constituencies such as mine consigned to incapacity benefit. That is the true, shocking legacy of the Conservatives in the south Wales valleys.

Cheryl Gillan: That grandstanding from the hon. Gentleman, who is living in the past, is not unremarkable. Quite frankly, I prefer to look to the future, and we are proud of our record in Wales.
	It is time for Wales to have an alternativenot an alternative such as Plaid, which would tear Wales out of the heart of the United Kingdom, but an alternative that would put heart back into Wales with a revolution of social, corporate and personal responsibility. In the brief time available, I shall set out some of our hopes and aspirations for this valuable part of the UK.
	Despite Labour's false rhetoric, we are determined as a party to improve the national health service for everyoneand not help the few to opt out. We are committed to the NHS ideal and have ruled out any move towards an insurance-based system. My colleagues in the Assembly have already set out some exciting proposals to improve NHS performance in Wales. They have been making plans so that, if successful in the elections, they can move to ensure safe and speedy access to local and appropriate hospitals, access to modern medicines, improvements in the hospital environment and to promote health and well-being throughout Wales.
	We have a vision for the health service and health care in Wales, which trusts the doctors and the nursesit is they, not politicians, who should be in the driving seat so that they can decide what is best for patients. Let us contrast that vision with eight years of Labour reality. Waiting lists are higher than when the Assembly was created, trusts are facing cumulative debts of more than 100 million, fewer than half of the adult population is registered with a dentist, and the health service is taking on administrative staff at a faster rate than it employs doctors and nurses.
	Even Labour's first initiative, which was to create 22 health boards out of the five existing health authorities, is disastrous. That alone cost the Welsh taxpayer 15 million and has resulted in a duplication of effort and a huge increase in bureaucracy that has since curtailed any chance of increased efficiency and productivity in the service. So bad has Labour stewardship been that even the British Medical Association in Wales passed in 2005 a vote of no confidence in the Labour Welsh Assembly Government, following their mishandling of GP contracts. Our health service is certainly not safe in their hands.
	I agree with the Secretary of State that climate change is probably the biggest challenge facing us today in Wales or beyond our borders. It was good to hear that the right hon. Gentleman takes it seriously. He obviously takes it more seriously than the First Minister, who thinks that climate change is a subject of amusement, warranting flippant remarks about the weather. To me and my colleagues, it is a subject of great concernnot least following the publication of the key environmental statistics that I mentioned earlier, which show that emissions are higher in 2004 than they were in 1990. The right hon. Gentleman and I share the same aim on this and he will be pleased to know that Welsh Conservatives have been developing plans to reflect the need to develop and exploit renewable technology by exploring the viability of tidal power, biofuels and hydropower.

Peter Hain: I am glad to hear that, but then why did the Leader of the Opposition denounce the gwynt y mr wind farm projectthe biggest in Wales by a long wayas a giant bird blender?

Cheryl Gillan: Probably because my right hon. Friend took the view that it was a giant bird blender. Just because views are expressed about one scheme, it does not mean that we are [Interruption.] No, individual views expressed about one scheme do not deny the need to develop and exploit renewable technologiesa subject on which we all agree. We will all have our personal opinions about where we think schemes and projects should be placed. For instance, I would be interested to hear how the Secretary of State feels about the need to evaluate the replacement nuclear facility at Wylfa, which he missed out in his speech. Will he tell us now whether he is in favour of replacing that plant?

Peter Hain: I am definitely in favour of a proper assessment, on which I have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen) and, indeed, Anglesey council in his constituency, which wants an assessment to see whether it is possible to replace Wylfa, should that opportunity arise.

Cheryl Gillan: Good. I am very glad that the Secretary of State is now adopting Conservative policy.

Albert Owen: The hon. Lady says that the Leader of the Opposition was just expressing a personal view, so let me remind the House of his personal view on nuclear power. He says that it should be the last possible option. It may be too late, because some people who advocate a nuclear-free Wales might actually be aiming towards an electricity-free Wales, particularly if we waited for the Tory policy of wait and see.

Cheryl Gillan: Sadly, the hon. Gentleman has not seemed to notice that it is his party that is in government. I am surprised that the Secretary of State agrees with me about the need to assess whether to replace our nuclear facilities at Wylfa. Given his history, I would have thought that he would be in favour of a nuclear-free Wales. However, we want an increase in corporate responsibility, which will ensure that business and the Government work together to make those changes that will contribute to a thriving, not a dying, environment.
	In the spirit of St. David, it is the little things that count. Our excellent team in the Assembly will be setting out tough standards for recycling and reusing our waste so that we continue to make progress in tackling the mountain of rubbish to which we are all guilty of contributing.
	Of similarly great concern is the future of our farming and countryside. The rural economy cannot flourish unless a vibrant agricultural sector is at its heart. Welsh Conservatives believe that farming must be properly valued. We do not want dairy farmers going out of business or large tracts of land abandoned, and we know that farmers must be confident that the Government have a coherent vision for a more prosperous rural economy.
	Our plan is to work with farmers in partnership, recognising the vital role that they play in food production and the responsible management of our rural heritage. We also want to encourage new entrants and those who work in land-based industries, and ensure that they have the opportunities for education that meet the modern demands of the agricultural sector.
	Our countryside is not just farms, but our wildlife and our stunning national parks and coastal geography. The balance that must be struck by future administrations is to protect that heritage while allowing development to deliver a greater prosperity to as many as possible.

Paul Flynn: In an answer to a parliamentary question yesterday, it was confirmed that the farm tax on subsidies alone paid by the average family in the country is 10 a family a weeka substantial increase on the previous year. Is the hon. Lady happy to see the average family pay that tax to this industry, or would she like it to be increased?

Cheryl Gillan: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should stand by and allow our agricultural sector to decline, I am not with him. Our farmers deserve our support. However, our countryside is not just farms, but our wildlife and parks. A balance must be struck by future Administrations to protect that heritage, while allowing development to deliver greater prosperity to as many as possible.
	Our seaside towns, in particular, deserve much greater attention than they have received under this Administration. They have served generations of holiday makers well in the past and, under Conservative plans, will be given a new lease of life to provide the holiday destinations of the future. With award-winning beaches such as Oxwich bay on the Gower, and as awareness of carbon footprints rises, so too, with some encouragement, could the demand to holiday closer to home. We must be ready to meet that demand.
	We must be ready in Waleshere I agree with the Secretary of Stateto meet the demands of the ever more challenging globalisation of our world and the competition that is eating the heart out of some of our traditional industries in Wales. We agree with both sides of the House that we must all support Airbus, which provides leading-edge technology and engineering capabilities in our Welsh economy and supports almost 7,000 jobs in Wales. Those jobs also impact on a further 50,000 jobs in the supply chain. I hope that the Government can give us assurances that they will continue to ensure that research and technology, which is vital for this company to secure work in the future, will be available. We need an improving economy in Wales.

Don Touhig: I am glad about the hon. Lady's support for Airbus. Will she also confirm her support for Burberry workers? The campaign to sustain their jobs is being led by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). If she does confirm her support, she might have a word with two of her colleagues who serve on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), who appeared in the Committee this week to support Burberry in exporting Welsh jobs.

Cheryl Gillan: I think that those remarks are an utter disgrace, because I understand that that is not the position of my hon. Friends; perhaps they will raise that issue in their contributions. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I met Burberry very early on. I am still concerned about the job reductions, particularly in our textile industry in Wales. I went to some lengths to explore all the opportunitiesretraining, reskilling, micro-finance and what would be done about the plant. I can give him the assurance that he sought. I have yet to meet the unions, although I have made several approaches in seeking to talk to them about the loss of jobs in Treorchy. It is good to know that he and I agree and care about the future of jobs in Wales, particularly of people who work for Burberry.

Stephen Crabb: The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) spoke of his concern for the Burberry workers and referred to the Welsh Affairs Committee sitting earlier this week. If he had any real concern for the Burberry workers or the thousands of other manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the past two years in Wales, he would be screaming in the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the erosion of our skills base, declining UK competitiveness and the quality of our education system.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that he will add to it when he speaks later.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Lady give way? It is about Burberry.

Cheryl Gillan: I have given way enough, and I think that we have talked about Burberry enough. I want to move on, because the Secretary of State used so much time that everybody in the Chamber will be squeezed in making their contributions. However, I put it on the record that my support for the Burberry workers and my efforts to explore alternative ways in which they could be employed started right at the beginning, even before, I believe, the Secretary of State met the directors and representatives from Burberry.

Don Touhig: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: No, I want to continue.
	We need an improving economy in Wales. No matter what the Secretary of State says, he cannot escape the fact that 10 years of Labour government have left Wales the poorest part of the United Kingdom. That is one point that is curiously missing from the long list of so-called Labour achievements that he read out. Under Labour, the Welsh economy has suffered. For many, the very purpose and benefit of devolution was to enable more suitable policies to be developed for Wales, with the key aim of bridging the wealth gap between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Since 1999, there has been a range of Government-led activities, but it remains the case that Wales is officially the poorest part of the United Kingdom, and a quarter of Welsh children live in households at or below the poverty threshold.
	Labour wants to make its record a key part of the Assembly election campaign, but its efforts have largely failed. Official figures now show a widening wealth gap between the richest and poorest parts of Wales. Despite hundreds of millions of pounds of EU aid being spent in west Wales and the valleys since 1999, the region is now even further behind east Wales in terms of average wealth. West Wales and the valleys are now poorer than when the Conservative party left office in 1997.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, unemployment rates have fallen since 1997, not least due to the increase in public sector employment, but inactivity rates are among the highest in the United Kingdom, and we see a rising trend of inactivity rates among men, while more and more women are going out to work to keep the bodies and souls of their families together.
	We will need some radical thinking to help the Welsh economy to thrive again, whether it is re-examining business taxes, incentivising entrepreneurs, improving our transport system or boosting our research and development and science base, Welsh Conservatives will be putting in that effort to raise our economic prospects. We have clearly worked enthusiastically with other parties, despite the Labour party's efforts to claim sole credit, to support the St. Athan bid, which will bring some of these badly needed jobs to Wales. We will also work enthusiastically against them, however, if we feel that they are damaging and demoralising the work force, such as Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs workers whom I met in Pembrokeshire the other day. The callousness of a Government who claim the credit for job creation in one part of Wales in advance of the elections, and then leave a decision over the future of the Revenue and Customs workers until after the Assembly elections, deserves contempt. It is no wonder that politicians get a bad name.
	It is also no wonder that politicians get a bad name when we see one of the most important tasks that Government should execute carried out so poorly that our safety is no longer assured. I refer, of course, to the policing of our country and borders. I am second to none in my admiration of our four police forces in Wales. They carry out a difficult and dangerous job and deserve the support of the Government and the populations that they serve. They also deserve some common sense and responsibility. It is not responsible to make police forces waste time, effort and money on pursuing administrative changes that are then abandoned with a subsequent loss of time and money to those forces. It is not responsible, and it defies common sense, to preside over a system whereby the police arrest suspected illegal immigrants only to find that they are instructed to release them back into the community before processing.
	Despite countless promises to review, reform and redress its failings, the Home Office remains clearly unfit for purpose. There is absolutely no point in the Minister trying to blame that on us, as the responsibility rests fairly and squarely on his Government's incompetent shoulders. I hope that when he makes his winding-up speech, he will address the issue and tell us what his Government have done to ensure that such a security lapse never happens again, either in Wales or elsewhere.
	Over the past year, I have listened to the Secretary of State and his colleagues imply that there can be no valid criticism of Labour's record, because under Labour, there has been record investment. There may well have been record expenditure, but there has not been record performance. We all know that any fool can spend money. There may be new school buildings, but thousands of schoolchildren are leaving school without the basic skills to have a fulfilling future. We read today in  The Western Mail, an excellent paper, headlines saying that a quarter of Welsh adults have literacy skills below those of an 11-year-old and that our school buildings in Wales are still falling down. There may be more spending on health care, but waiting lists are still higher than when Labour came to power. I repeat: less than half of all adults are registered with an NHS dentist. Too often, people in Wales have been denied access to modern medicines. There may be more grants coming in from Europe, but 3,500 jobs have been lost since April last year and there is still deprivation and social exclusion across the country.
	Record expenditure also comes at a price. The average family in the UK is paying 9,000 more in tax than when Labour came to office. Every homeowner in Wales knows about the cost of revaluation, and today we learn that the enormous increases in council tax in Wales are now likely to push the average bill above 1,000 for the first time. Let us remember all the money that Labour has taken out of people's pockets; it has helped itself to the money from the windfall tax, the sale of gold, the third generation mobile phone licences and the pension fundsbillions of pounds that have been spent, and still Wales is the poorest part of the United Kingdom.
	For decades Labour claimed that Wales would be better under its management than under the Conservatives, and that is now patently one of the great political deceptions of our times. As Patrick McGuinness, a former Labour candidate, wrote, Labour is the party that
	has presided over the increase of inequality between the rich and the poor, often in the very constituencies of those who most vociferously complain about the supposed 'crachach'.
	He adds that it has run a health service that is
	a blight on the devolution project.
	I could not have put it better myself.
	The Conservatives now have a new spring in their step. We offer a new, fresh and appealing agenda. The prospectus that will be laid out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) together with me and the leader of our Welsh Conservatives, Nicholas Bourne, will offer hopemuch-needed hope that there can be a better future in Wales. We are working for a better future for everyone. As Chris Chapman, who at 19 is our youngest community councillor, in Rogerstone, put it:
	The more I read, the more I was drawn to the...Conservative partyfreedom of enterprise, freedom of choice, and freedom of opportunity for all members of society, regardless of their background.
	That is the Conservative messageone of which I think that St. David would have approved.
	When 3 May arrives, we will be asking electors in Wales to look at Labour's record and wake up to the fact that after 10 years it has not fulfilled its promises. I urge them, for the sake of our future, to vote Welsh Conservative for a changea much-needed changein Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which operates from now.

Paul Murphy: Anyone would have thought there was an election about.
	It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) refer to Rogerstone community council, which abuts my constituency and is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). I assume that she is talking about the highest elected political office that the Conservatives have on a first-past-the-post basis in my part of Wales. We did once have a Conservative on the local authority in my constituency, but that was some years ago.

Paul Flynn: I believe that Mr. Chapman achieved his high office on the community council having been co-opted on to it. I urge the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to read the MySpace contribution by Mr. Chapman, as I did recently. Perhaps she could put it into her manifesto. One could not describe it in the House because almost every other word would be inappropriate in parliamentary language.

Paul Murphy: Yes; perhaps it would be a good idea for the hon. Lady to choose another example next time.

Cheryl Gillan: This sounds like a case of young versus old. I think that it is just jealousy because he is so young at 19, and obviously very much in touch with people. He is a good man.

Paul Murphy: I look forward to meeting him.
	Today, as if we did not know, is St. David's day, but another famous Welsh monk saint was St. Cadoc, who was the patron saint of our south Wales valleys. I am sure that he would agree with the idea of a Minister for the valleys, which I have been talking about for some time. I echo, in some ways, what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said about the importance of ensuring that there are Government offices and that Government activities take place in the valleys of south Wales, and I take her point about HMRC. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has met the appropriate Minister about that, and perhaps he could indicate the result of that meeting when he winds up.
	There are some things that we do not necessarily always welcome in our constituencies. One of those is the prison that it is believed might come to my constituency, in Cwmbran. I have met the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), about that, and I have discussed it with the Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration in the Assembly. If there is to be an extra prison in Walesthere is some evidence to suggest that there should beit should be placed, as the Welsh Assembly Government are suggesting, in an area of high unemployment that it could help to regenerate. There is also a case to be made for a prison in north Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman is right. As he knowswe have discussed this beforethere has been a long-standing campaign for that to happen in north Wales. I do not want to damage him politically, but I entirely agree with what he says.

Paul Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	The site that has been chosen as a possible site for a prison in my constituency is in the middle of the densest population in terms of housing in the whole of Wales apart from Cardiff. That is because it was a new town. The Government may have chosen it because they own it, as it was previously the site of the police training college. Had they thought about it a little, they would have realised that the price of housing in my constituencyat least the southern part of itmeans that the 40 acres on which the prison might go would bring the Revenue some 40 million. They could build one or two prisons with that. I understand that no decisions have been made, and there will be time to discuss the matter in other circumstances and places. However, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to liaise with their counterparts in the Home Office on this important issueparticularly as the Welsh Assembly Government see a good case for a prison to be put in other areas.
	That highlights the question of security and policing in Wales. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the restructuring of the police forces in Wales. That, of course, has not happened. However, it is important to understand that even though that has not occurred, organised crime and the terrorist threats to Wales have not gone away. The restructuring proposals may have disappearedI had some sympathy with the view that we should retain our present structure in Walesbut the threats to Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, are the same now as they were before the restructuring document came out.
	I speak in another capacity: as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Threats to infrastructure, to centres of population and to great shopping centres do not stop at the Wye valley or the Welsh border. Members will know that the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, recently indicated that in our country there are at least 200 groupings of people who are actively engaged in plotting to take part in terrorist activities and that as many as 1,600 people may be involved in that. Therefore, we still need to be vigilant. We need to be conscious of the fact that we have to co-operate with other police forces across the border such as Avon and Somerset, and we have to be conscious, too, that terrorism is an issue across the whole of the United Kingdom. As a result, it is important for all our forces in Wales, including the special branches, to ensure not only that they are up to speed, but most importantly that they are strengthened in order to fight the war against terrorism, which could be as difficult for us in Wales as it is in any other part of the UK.

David Davies: The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the subject. In his expert opinion, what does he make of the proposals by Plaid Cymru to make the police and justice system generally part of the remit of the Welsh Assembly? Does he think that that would enable us and the police forceI ask him this in an open-minded fashionto fight terrorism in a better way?

Paul Murphy: I will come to that issue in a few moments.
	Obviously, when we talk to people in Wales about the policing of our country, they often, rightly, refer to neighbourhood crime and to antisocial behaviour. We know too that Wales has had a considerable increase in the number of policemen and women on our streets and in the number of community support officers. I understand why it is that, for example, in the AssemblyEdwina Hart, who is the responsible Minister, does a very good job of liaising with the Home Office and in dealing with these mattersthe issues of drugs and antisocial behaviour are so important, but that does not mask the fact that those other threats are there.
	I come to the point that the hon. Gentleman made. My belief is that we should involve and not devolve with regards to security and policing. There is no need to devolve the powers of the Home Secretary. We have a legal system that is the same as in England. It is different from that in Scotland. There is a strong case for improving co-operation between the Welsh Assembly and the Home Office, a point that the hon. Gentleman's party made in the Assembly only a couple of days ago. I agree with that because there is room for improvement; there is no question about that. The Assembly has to deal with many issues that affect the police, whether it is housing, education or drugs, so there is a case for co-operation. The Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary will perhaps be able to suggest to the Home Secretary that there is a case for setting up a joint working party between the Assembly Government and the Home Office to deal with those important issues.
	I do not know whether the Home Office will be split in the next couple of weeks. There is a case for separating justice from dealing with terrorism. I do not, incidentally, think that there is a case for MI6 going into the Home Office, but that is another issue for another place and another time. That discussion seems to be the most opportune time to discuss the relationship between Wales and the UK in dealing with the important issue of the threat to our security. All people in Wales would agree with that.
	The debate about whether there should be devolution of the police is for another day and not today, and involvement is the right way. The greatest and most important duty of any Government is to protect their citizens from threats, whether external or internal, and Wales has to be part of that.
	I conclude by touching on the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about energy. I agree very much that we must look at tidal energy from the Severn, but we must be careful where wind farms are placed. There is a balance to be made between the environment and the energy that those farms produce. We delude ourselves if we think that we can have an energy future that excludes nuclear power, but again that is for another day.

Lembit �pik: Let me start by wishing the whole House a happy [ Interruption. ] I was going to say Valentine's day. That is in the past. Happy St. David's day; dydd gwyl Dewi dda.
	I very much enjoyed the Secretary of State's speech although unfortunately, as ever, I experienced a dull thud of disappointment when I realised that the Government were not profoundly willing to change anything of great importance; for example, the Barnett formula, which, as has been pointed out, is so out of date even its inventor thinks it needs to be replaced. It is in this context that I offer the Welsh Liberal Democrat vision; I hope it will be an inspiration to us all as we look forward to a healthier Wales in economic and environmental terms and in terms of communities.
	Let us start with healthy communities. There is no better international example of what this means than the Fairtrade movement. Fair trade fortnight began on Monday and we all salute the Fairtrade Foundation's work. The universally recognisable Fairtrade marque helps consumers support people in developing countries to get a fair deal from trade. Although the Fairtrade movement does not apply to UK produce, the concept enshrines the absolute importance of valuing our food producers and sustainable healthy communities. That principle necessarily applies to Wales.
	Wales has a proud history of food and drink production and this week I am glad to say that the Commons Refreshment Department is promoting Welsh food and drink in the Commons dining rooms, cafeterias and bars, so that MPs, peers and visitors to Parliament can celebrate St. David's day in style. We welcome the initiative, none more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). The Strangers bar, as some hon. Members will know, is stocking Golden Valley ale from the Breconshire brewery. I applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend. I think I can say that no one in Parliament has done more to promote sales of this beer than he. I salute the sober way in which he has repeatedly stepped forward to the bar to support his local brewery. He has been an example to us all.
	While we should highlight our food and drink industry and our tourism strategy and make that one of the key selling points, my concern is that the Britain and London visitor centre no longer has staff dedicated to advising on visits to Wales since the Assembly Government took control of the Wales Tourist Board. Will the Under-Secretary explain why that is the case when he winds up? How can we make sure that we do not lose out, having lost that staff support at a very important centre?
	More seriously still, the increasing currency that Welsh food and drink enjoys is not reflected by increased currency to our farmers. In real terms, farmers receive 20 per cent. less for milk than they did in 1988, 19 years ago. One thousand dairy farmers in England and Wales have gone out of business in the last year alone. DEFRA figures show that farmers are getting 34 per cent. less for beef and 30 per cent. less for lamb than they did 19 years ago.

Roger Williams: Like my hon. Friend, I congratulate the Fairtrade movement on establishing itself within the consciousness of the British consumer. However, it is strange that people actively seek out Fairtrade tea and coffee and then add milk that has been sold below the cost of production. Does my hon. Friend think that there is a need to have fair trade in this country as well as in third world countries?

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend is right. The price farmers receive for their milk can be as low as 16p or 17p per litre. That is more than 4p less than the cost of producing it, yet it is sold in supermarkets for about 55p or 57p per litre.
	Meat imports have risen 57 per cent. since 1997. Why? How can the Government allow such exploitation to continue? In government, Welsh Liberal Democrats would take steps to ensure that farmers are not ripped off at the farm gate for the sake of profit at the supermarket checkout. Again, I challenge the Minister to say in his winding-up speech what the Labour party intends to do to try to address the outrageous disparities between the power of supermarkets and that of farmers.

Nia Griffith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Competition Commission inquiry into supermarkets? There are three strands to the inquiry. It will look into the issue of small shops, and also, in particular, into farm prices. Will he encourage all the farmers whom he knows to submit evidence to that inquiry so that it can come to a fair conclusion? That is the way forward; it is a very positive way of tackling the problems that farmers face.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I hope that farmers will get actively involved in that consultation process. However, I should add that on many occasions farmers have constructively engaged in Government consultations but have been rewarded with no improvement in the proposals being debated. I also lament the continuous apparent efforts of the Government to weaken the milk suppliers' power in the marketplace, stretching all the way back to the destruction of the Milk Marketing Board.
	I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the hon. Lady's sensible suggestion and the concerns that I have raised, not least because they affect associated industries as wellhence the announcement of the likely closure of the Aeron valley creamery in Ceredigion, with the potential loss of 44 jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) planned to attend today's debate, but he has had to travel to that creamery to consider the crisis with management and the very concerned work force. The staff have worked hard to establish well known brands, and the decision that has been made was a bolt from the blue. Our priority must be to protect that factory and similar factories as going concerns, and to establish why yet another firm in the dairy sector has pulled its operations only two years after setting up.
	Sadly, despite all their fine words, the Government have done little to support farming. They cut Tir Mynydd payments to hill farmers and ignored the threat posed by new European Union rules on electronic identity for sheep farmers. They also refused to give farmers more bargaining power against the supermarkets. Instead of strengthening the relatively toothless code of practice they have let the balance of power lie with the massive supermarket chains, and instead of introducing a food trade inspector with strong investigative powers they have just sat on their hands.
	My colleague, Mick Bates, the Assembly Member for Montgomeryshire, has called for a fair trade Welsh milk co-operative so that farmers can get a fair return for their product. Happily, I hear that there has been some movement on that. It seems that Waitrose is prepared to introduce some form of transparent labelling system that shows the profits of the producer, the processor and the retailer. Does the Wales Office back that scheme, and will it encourage others to follow suit? I very much back the scheme, and Liberal Democrats feel that Waitrose is showing that major outlets have nothing to fear from working more in partnership with the suppliers, on whom they depend for the produce that makes them their profits.
	It appears that similar kinds of pressures are applying in respect of the Wales post office network. In many isolated settlements post offices are the social hub, yet Government Departments and agencies have this year cut contracts with post offices, draining support from the network. In the Assembly, Labour failed to back Liberal Democrat proposals to reinstate the post office development fund, which helped to keep more than 100 post offices open between 2002 and 2004.
	The Government consultation on closing 2,500 post offices ends next Wednesday. On 6 February, we gave the Minister notice that individual sub-postmasters had not been sent a copy of the consultation document. That might explain why only 15 responses have so far been received from Wales. Why did the Wales Office not make sure that the document was circulated by the Department of Trade and Industry? Is the Wales Office willing to provide more time for reasonable consultation opportunities with the sub-postmasters, who would be happy to make a contribution, and who would have done so if only they had known that they were expected to do so?

Nia Griffith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that post offices have access to computers, and that that survey was available on the Department of Trade and Industry website? I am sure that they were all more than capable of downloading it.

Lembit �pik: I hope that the work that I, others and perhaps the hon. Lady herself have done has raised awareness of the proposals, but given their enormity, it was fair for sub-postmasters to expect the Government to be far more proactive and perhaps to contribute marginally to post offices' turnover by mailing them a hard copy of the very proposals that could shut down much of our network.

Roger Williams: Following our discussions with the Minister, it was agreed that my office in Brecon would contact each post office and send out the consultation documents. As a result, we have already received more than 600 repliesmore will be coming inand I hope to present them to the DTI next week. So my hon. Friend should not be too despairing.

Lembit �pik: On that point, I thank the Minister for the time that he took to meet us and the sub-postmasters, who felt, as do we, that it was a constructive meeting. I hope that he will take on board the proposals arising from the consultation exercise that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentions. In essence, such proposals can be summarised as creating a one-stop shop where people can buy their TV licence, renew their car tax and pay council tax and other bills. We also encourage the Minister to think creatively about bringing in new business to rural areas. Could post offices be used to process livestock movement forms, for example? Can a concerted effort be made to encourage Welsh councils to use post offices for council tax and rent payments, and perhaps even for the payment of parking fines?
	The trend to move local services away from rural and sparsely populated areas is tragically reflected in the threatened closure of local tax offices in regions and constituencies such as mid-Wales, Montgomeryshire and Ceredigion. Do the Government not know that, far from being under-employed, these offices help to deal with the backlog from centralised offices such as that in Wrexham? In fact, they are totally overloaded. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Wales Office will listen to the case for maintaining those local offices and help us to get the Treasury to think again, not least because the possible reduction in the tax collected could exceed the superficial saving made through such closures. Given that all those offices are fully employed, it is fairly difficult to see how any saving in staff numbers can be made. I hope that the Minister will comment on that issue.
	Another sign of a healthy community is how it tackles crime. Welsh prisons were effectively full in 2000; now, they are roughly 140 per cent. above their original design capacity. Over that period, staff to prisoner ratios have fallen, while violence in Welsh prisons has, unsurprisingly, more than doubled. This prison crisis was not unexpectedall the warning signs were there long before the media started covering the issue. In the last four years alone, there have been 900 incidents of prisoner-on-prisoner violence at Parc prison, in Cardiff. Under such circumstances it is extremely difficult to rehabilitate prisoners, and efforts are hampered by the stress caused within the culture of the prison itself. In fact, that might partly explain why reoffending rates have risen from 57 per cent. in 1992 to 67 per cent. today.

David Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although prison overcrowding is a problem, the difficulty is that not enough prison places have been created, and the solution is not simply to let out on to the streets people who should not be there?

Lembit �pik: In part, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the underlying problem is that we are not dealing with the fundamental causes of crime. The Welsh Lib Dems believe that a healthy community in Wales is one in which those convicted of criminal offences are educated out of crime, helped to move away from drug and alcohol addiction and given the tools to access jobs, thereby reducing the likelihood that they will reoffend. The current problem is that almost the opposite seems to be happening, owing to overcrowding. Adding to the problem is the fact that many convicts and young offenders are more than 100 miles from their natural support networks. They can be based as far away as Suffolk or Newcastle. Such distances necessarily damage the chances of rehabilitating the very individuals on whom we should be working hard to move them away from crime.
	The Welsh Liberal Democrats are also delighted to give credit where it is due, and restorative justice programmes and one-to-one mentoring schemes are part of the solution. Given the response by the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) recently, the Government appear to be interested in considering such schemes, which have had a significant success rate in moving people off drug addictions and finding them new jobs after their sentences. While prisons can be a school for crime, we have to find other ways to restore the chances for individuals and remove them from the crime cycle.
	Five years ago, north Wales was the safest area in Wales in terms of gun crime, and one of the safest in the UK. Since then, gun crime in north Wales has risen fourteenfold, making it the area of Wales most at risk from gun crime, which is now more common than in areas such as Newcastle, Bristol and Hull. I asked the Minister whether he is aware of the White Gold project pioneered in north Cornwall. It is a partnership between the police, youth offending teams and community workers. It has worked quite well and has a track record of reducing crime by as much as 56 per cent., a saving to the Home Office of 500,000. We feel that this model, using a dedicated police unit in partnership with youth offending teams, which could work closely with youth officers in each safer neighbourhood team, could make the difference between those young people reoffending or having a chance to get back on track.

Mark Tami: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Welsh police pointed out that those figures included air weapons? I do not wish to minimise the seriousness of the misuse of such weapons, but the overall figures may be distorted by that fact.

Lembit �pik: I am aware of the debate, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have a serious and growing gun problem in north Wales. Without having an argument with him or Richard Brunstrom about the specific figures, I think that we have a real opportunity to take a different approach, to learn from the project in the south-west and to apply it in north Wales.
	The greatest deterrent to crime is the fear of being caught, but Wales is some 430 police community support officers short of the Government's own original target. In the last year, we have actually seen police numbers fall by more than 70. Welsh forces have been through enormous upheavals and one can see where some of the resources have been diverted, resulting in the squeeze on funds. The most obvious example is the botched police merger. It was wisely abandoned, but the process wasted more than 30,000 Welsh police force hours. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire can confirm that in Brecon a team consisting of 13 staff, many of them quite senior officers and from all four Welsh forces, was working full time on the merger proposals for up to 10 monthsa total, for only those staff, of more than 16,000 police hours. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Welsh police forces, which are suffering from a significant 500,000 funding black hole as a direct result of the merger proposals, will have that money reimbursed, so that they may make good the losses that were not of their doing.
	To have a healthy Wales, we also need healthy people. Health care risks becoming ever more remote from communities across Wales, despite the proven advantages of care closer to home. Cottage hospitals provide less expensive bed spaces than the large district general hospitals and they also allow patients to convalesce locally, closer to their families. That has a clear record of speeding recovery times. Improvements in technology also provide us with a serious opportunity to base specialists in central locations, but to deliver the services remotely using the wonders of modern science.
	The overwhelming majority of the decisions to close such facilities are in the hands of local health boards, which are meant to make decisions locally and accountably. I appeal directly to those boards not to follow the remorseless pace of centralisation, but to recognise that if we make full use of the available technologies, community health care can be the best health care.

Jennifer Willott: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent announcement of an independent inquiry into how haemophiliacs in Wales were infected with HIV and hepatitis? Will he join me in urging Welsh Office Ministers to make representations on their behalf to ensure that the Department of Health co-operates fully with the inquiry?

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly in that campaign, and she makes a good, cross-party point. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he will work with her, and with his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly and the Department of Health, to ensure that that preventable and tragic problem is dealt with in the most effective way.
	To illustrate my remarks about local hospitals in Wales, I shall give an example from my constituency. There is no justification on earth for the closure of Llanidloes hospital, as that will cost lives, not save money. I had a serious accident in 1998, and the hospital saved my life. Many people would not be alive today without the fast, professional and efficient service that staff there have displayed down the years.
	Closing Llanidloes hospital will merely shift patients further afield, and shunt costs to other budget headings. No one on the local health board has yet been able to explain where the cost savings will come from, and that is because they do not exist. Local health boards were supposed to provide local accountability; that was the whole point, but if they are not responsible to local demand, they cannot do their job and be responsive to local need. In the Liberal Democrat picture, local health provision is vital, and I hope that Welsh Office Ministers will use whatever powers they have to work with their opposite numbers in Cardiff to make sure that the tragic closure of essential services is prevented.
	That brings me to the third and final element of what we regard as the Welsh health checklista healthy environment and a sustainable economy. I am very encouraged that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and the Secretary of State both said that they are genuinely and seriously committed to the environment. Two key reports in the past six months, the Stern report and the first part of the fourth assessment report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change, have made the case for environmental action more compelling and urgent then ever before. Three certainties arise from those groundbreaking pieces of workfirst, that climate change and the environment are, and will remain, of primary concern to humankind for the foreseeable future; secondly, that without concerted action now our lifestyles will have catastrophic knock-on effects on our environment, economies and descendants; and thirdly that, with the right kind of policies, protecting our environment and combating climate do not have to come at the expense of our economies.
	On the contrary, combating climate change is an economic opportunity, not an economic risk. The lesson is that, by pursuing a sustainable and healthy economy, we can also preserve a sustainable and healthy environment.

David Davies: Has the hon. Gentleman seen reports that flying is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases? What should hon. Members do to try to decrease the amount of time that they spend in aeroplanes?

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman is slightly off beam, as usual. I assume that what he says today will be directly contradicted by Nick Bourne tomorrow.  [ Interruption. ] He needs to settle down. I will answer his question, but he must stop talking, as otherwise he will not be able to hear me.
	The aviation industry as a whole generates 3 per cent. of world pollution. The hon. Gentleman will know that I fly aircraft. I very much enjoy it, and believe that that puts me in a strong position to say what I think should happen. I believe that aviation should pay its environmental way, and that the Government should work on an international basis to secure an environmental offset on the fuel used in commercial jets. No such offset exists at present.
	My opinion may surprise those hon. Members who know that I am actively involved in the aviation world, but such involvement can be no excuse for environmental irresponsibility. The Government should take the opportunity to be proactive and secure international agreements at a European level to ensure that aviation pays its environmental way. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
	Wales is peering through a window of opportunity, as it is blessed with many different renewable energy resources, a wealth of environmental expertise and a solid platform of green industries. However, if we do not change direction we will miss out and blow a golden chance to become the green capital of the UK. That would be a terrible wasted opportunity. It is made worse by pressure from Scotland, which has been running a green jobs strategy since June 2005.
	Wales' efforts to generate clean energy are being damaged by our lack of ambitious targets. While the Scottish Executive, no doubt because of the constructive contribution of the coalition Liberal Democrat partners in government, have committed themselves to obtaining 100 per cent. of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015; the Welsh Assembly has still not identified what taking a Welsh share of the UK's Kyoto commitment means. Nor has it developed a coherent climate change programme. Meanwhile, by contrast, Scotland's strategy is well under way, and it is likely to meet its Scottish share of its Kyoto commitment.
	I do not want to see Wales fall behind on the green agenda. I want to see Wales become the greenest country in Europe. To make it so, we must employ the full range of measures at our disposal. Does the Wales Office have any sympathy with some of the Minister's Welsh Assembly colleagues who would like to see Wales given power over planning for power stations above 50 MW? We feel that that power is essential if Wales is to unleash its potential to generate clean electricity from renewable sources. Does the Under-Secretary have any sympathy with those in Wales who want power over building regulations also devolved to the Assembly so that Wales can drive forward cutting-edge, energy-efficient building design? We have already heard some promising news about that.
	One Government measure that has been mentioned in previous debates, and which I wholeheartedly support, is the forthcoming Energy Technology Institute. The 1 billion-worth of investment that has been pledged from private and public sources could have significant benefits for Wales and, in turn, could have positive results for the overall objective of developing new cutting-edge green technologies. We already have a wealth of experience in the research and development sector of green technologies and techniques. The Centre for Alternative Technology in Machynlleth is one such unique organisation, and it is carrying out pioneering work. I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating the CAT on its invaluable contributions.
	The same goes for the ground breaking work of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental ResearchIGERon the sustainable development of biomass crops, which were mentioned earlier. It estimates that up to one tenth of Welsh arable land could be used to grow energy crops as one way of converting from conventional agriculture to energy-related agriculture.
	Wales is also home to a wide range of green industries. Entrepreneurs such as Dulas in Montgomeryshire have developed domestic and portable microgeneration units and devices. Intersolar in Bridgend has developed solar energy roof tiles and G24i in Cardiff has developed a highly adaptable solar foil. I hope that Ministers will work to ensure that every effort is made to inform the DTI of the full contribution that Wales could make to the new ETI. I ask the Minister to confirm that he will urge his colleague to attend a showcase event taking place at the CAT later this year, showcasing Welsh green industries, research bodies and non-governmental organisations that could be in line for receiving funds under the ETI and other DTI programmes.
	I was also interested to hear of the recent High Court ruling on the Government's conduct during their energy review. Certainly, the consensus among Welsh stakeholders was in line with the judge's ruling that the Government had not been open and transparent in their information on nuclear power during the process. We need to restore confidence in the energy review process among Welsh stakeholders in order to avoid the mistakes of the past. I do not like nuclear power, but we cannot afford a failed consultation process that makes it look as if the Government have already made up their mind, as apparently the Prime Minister has, without really listening to what the public want. Nothing can be more pointless than a pretend consultation and a predetermined outcome.
	I am disappointed that the Government have decided to delay the introduction of the climate change Bill. Taking action on climate change is something that we all talk about as a matter of urgency. Wales would undoubtedly benefit. What discussions has the Minister had about a timetable for the introduction of that Bill?
	Mention of the Severn estuary has already been made. It can provide all of Wales' energy and one twentieth of the UK's energy. I simply underline the need not to discount the tidal lagoon technology, which may or may not be better than the Severn barrage. I strongly urge Ministers to have a second look at it. Such technologies could have a fruitful future. It is argued that tidal lagoons could have less environmental impact than a barrage, so I ask only that we have a sensible debate rather than assuming that a barrage would be better than lagoons.
	The House is expecting a White Paper on the marine Bill and I hope that the Wales Office has worked with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry on the potential for Wales to maximise cost-effective electricity generation off the coast of Wales from all forms of renewable marine technology. As a nation, we must discuss the level of coastal protection that Wales can expect in the foreseeable future, in light of rising sea levels and an increased number of storms. We should seize the chance to combine coastal protection measures and renewable marine technologies in a forward-thinking, cost-effective, joined-up strategy to protect the Welsh coast and generate clean energy. My concern is that although the Government talk warmly about environmental strategies they do not always join them up, so we end up with missed opportunities, or half-finished projects, which conflict with one another for funding.
	In conclusion, the Welsh Liberal Democrats aim to deliver a holistic healthy Wales, with healthy communities, healthy people and a healthy and environmentally sustainable economy. We are committed to a healthy Wales because we know that it is possible, so if that is what Wales wants it is exactly what Wales will get by voting for the Liberal Democrats in May. We started on that programme when we were in government, and I hope we proved that we were effective in helping to serve Wales in a way that genuinely added value to the quality of life of our Welsh citizens; so if that is what the Welsh people want, I hope that in May they will vote for the Liberal Democrats, who promise to deliver it.

Ann Clwyd: I hope that before the end of the debate one of my more gallant friends will give you a daffodil, Madam Deputy Speaker [ Interruption. ] I now see that you are already wearing a daffodil, but perhaps one of my hon. Friends will offer you a larger one.
	It is more than 25 years since I was a Member of the European Parliament, but I recall that we were often given only three minutes to make a speech. It is amazing how much can be said in three minutes. Back Benchers have a time limit this afternoon, although I hope to be much briefer than that. It seems a long time since we discussed the length of Front-Bench speeches in the House, and it is time we did so. I have sat on the Front Bench, but I know, too, that one of the most irritating things for Back Benchers is for Front Bench speakers to go on too long[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.]and my criticism applies to both sides of the House.
	I want to thank the Wales Office, because there are many good news stories in Wales, although we would not think so from listening to the Welsh media and reading the Welsh press. Many column inches are devoted to disasters, such as the loss of X hundred jobs. However, this week we have saved 500 jobs in Wales at Ferrari, which is based in my constituency and has shops throughout south Wales. I am grateful to the Wales Office for its assistance, to the Welsh Assembly, my AM colleague, Christine Chapman, and the representative of the bakers union, John Jones, who was optimistic throughouthe was certainly more optimistic than me. I am pleased to welcome the new owner of Ferrari, Cameron Gunn, who is Australian.
	I must say that, were it not for the assistance of the Wales Office, and some of the Ministers and officials in particular, we would have had great difficulty. It has meant a lot of hard work, but we have done it quietly and persistently. Every day, and sometimes all of every day, we have been talking to prospective buyers and to people who could assist them. It is a considerable success that 500 jobs have been saved throughout south Wales. The bakery is in Hirwaun in my constituency. Some of the workers have worked in the bakery for 30 years and sometimes whole families have worked there. I am particularly glad for them, because they knew that they had a good product. I kept telling them, While the customers continue to buy, the workers will continue to bake, and they have continued to bake, despite the threat hanging over them.
	The Ferrari family started baking in south Wales in 1925. Like many other successful immigrants at the time, the Ferraris came from Italy, on boats used for trading Italian timber, which was needed to support the mines of south Wales. The family originally came from the Bardi region and worked as miners when they arrived in south Wales, until they saw the gap in the market and became some of the earliest caf owners, along with Sid Doli's ice cream, Benny's cafs and many other well-known brands. The company was one of the many examples of the integration and success of migrant families, in an area famous for early integration.
	The other subject that I want to talk about briefly is homelessness. I am doing so in a non-partisan way. As somebody who has not been faced with the problem of homelessness in my constituency, to my knowledge, for a long time as a Member of Parliament, I have been shocked recently in Cardiff to see people sitting on the streets, by lifts, wrapped up in blankets, begging. I had conversations with some of those young people and asked what they are doing there and why they are not in some kind of accommodation. Each time, they told me, The hostels are full. I find it disgraceful that, in 2007, we should still be faced with homeless people in our communities. Some, of course, are homeless from choice and there will always be people like that in our community. Other people are homeless because they have quarrelled with their parents, or they cannot afford the rent and have lost their tenancy. There are all sorts of reasons.
	The situation was brought home to me a few weeks ago by an 18-year-old girl in my constituency. She did not have any previous problems. She was thrown out by her mother and, after some months of living with her boyfriend's family, she found that she had no alternative but to go out on to the streets to sleep. I was shocked when I discovered that my local council, Rhondda Cynon Taf, was unable to provide accommodation for her because she was not considered to be a priority need as defined by Assembly legislationdespite the fact that she was a vulnerable young woman, sleeping rough on the streets at a time when the police in Aberdare were searching for a man who had committed a serious sexual attack against a woman in broad daylight in the same town only a few days previously.
	I was even more shocked to discover that there is not one direct access hostel in my constituency. The nearest one is in Pontypridd and has only 10 beds to deal with the 560 referrals it received last year. For those, mostly young, people who have nowhere to go and who do not meet the priority guidelines, there are few alternatives, certainly in rural and semi-urban areas, other than the sofas of friends and the streets. According to Shelter Cymru, over recent years more people than ever have experienced homelessness in Wales. Recorded homelessness in Wales has been at record levels: more than 20,000 people, 7,000 of whom were dependent children and who were accepted by local councils as homeless in 2005.
	Shelter Cymru dealt with 18,632 housing problems last year. There is obviously a need for more suitable accommodation for people who lose their tenancies, but that goes only part of the way to solving the problem. There is certainly a lack of emergency, direct-access accommodation, which is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. In my view more could be done to help people retain their tenancies by providing supported accommodation for those who need it, and social services and tenancy support services. In that way we could greatly reduce the numbers who come through the doors of our local housing advice centres and hostels, and who line our pavements and sleep in our parks.
	I commend the work of the Welsh Assembly. It has been much more progressive on this issue than the equivalent authorities in England. The Assembly has really tried to address homelessness and done a great deal to implement preventive measures. However, there needs to be yet more emphasis on such measures, including mediation between parents and children. It is crucial that housing associations, independent housing charities and other services work more closely together. Most people come into contact with the health service and social services before becoming homeless, and it is vital that those services address homelessness at that stage. In addition, there must be an increase in the number of drug and alcohol rehabilitation places, which is still disgracefully low. There must also be increased practical support and training, and emotional support for vulnerable groups such as care leavers and prison leavers.
	Let me end on an optimistic note, which is that in my constituency, as in many others in Wales, the percentage of people unemployed has almost halved over the past 10 years. That is a tremendous success, and I compliment my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on helping to achieve it.

Stephen Crabb: It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). She speaks with an enormous amount of experience and wisdom.
	There is simply no better day than 1 March for a debate on the key issues facing the great nation of Wales. It is timely, too, coming just a couple of months before the Assembly elections, when voters in Wales will have an opportunity to give their verdicts on the Administration here in London and the Labour Administration in Cardiff. My fear for those elections, though, is that the vast majority of voters in Wales will be either too disillusioned or too uninterested to vote at all. For those who do vote, it will be an opportunity to participate in a referendum on the key issues affecting their lives. I do not believe that Welsh people think narrowly about which issues are devolved and which are the responsibility of Westminster; they think about the issues that they care about. The opening remarks of the Secretary of State notwithstanding, on many of the key issues affecting the Welsh people, unfortunately their verdict will be that the Government have failed.
	Before I go into depth on those issues, it is probably worth taking a moment to reflect on St. David's day. St. David, of course, has strong Pembrokeshire connections of which we are very proud. He had many miracles attributed to him, the most incredible of which was performed when he was preaching at the Synod of Llandewi Brefi, where he caused the ground to rise beneath him so that everybody there could see and hear him. I make no such claims for my own powers. We in Pembrokeshire are fond of our association with St. David. It is good to see so many right hon. and hon. Members sporting daffodils today. I love that flower; it is a happy, confident, optimistic-looking flower, rather like the new Conservative party. Of course, wearing daffodils on 1 March is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman's is wilting.

Stephen Crabb: It is still standing proud. The preferred symbol was, for many years, the leek. The sixth-century Welsh poet, Taliesin, was a great fan of the leek, believing that, if eaten, it encouraged good health and happiness. Whatever the origins of all the quirky practices of St. David's day, such as the wearing of leeks or daffodils, they are part of the fabric of our heritage. They are the things that help to bind us together as a nation.
	Some hon. Members present will be familiar with my views on St. David's day. I think that it is a special and unique day in the school calendar in Wales. I have respect for Members of all parties who believe that St. David's day should be a public holiday, but I believe that it is at its best when celebrated in schools. Next week, the  Western Telegraph Pembrokeshire and the  Milford and West Wales Mercury in my local area will be full of beautiful photographs of little Welsh girls wearing national costume, and lads wearing Welsh rugby shirts, daffodils or leeks. The schools are where St. David's day is celebrated best. I make a plea to Front Benchers on both sides of the House to resist calls for St. David's day to be a public holiday. It should remain a special day for Welsh schools.

Albert Owen: I certainly believe that St. David's day should be, and is, a special day, but if the schools argument is the strongest one that the hon. Gentleman has, I point out that kids in schools throughout Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom celebrate Christmas at school. There are lovely photos in the newspapers about Christmas, and schools have a nativity play on days other than Christmas day. The argument has to go beyond Wales; we should make St. George's day and St. Andrew's day public holidays, too, so that there is a level playing field, and so that we can celebrate the diversity of the United Kingdom.

Stephen Crabb: I hear the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I have talked to many teachers and parents in my constituency who are enormously supportive of keeping 1 March a normal school day. If it was a public holiday, and if we asked schools to celebrate St. David's day on an alternative day, the opportunities for Welsh children to learn about their national heritage would be reduced. That is just my point of view.
	Burberry was mentioned earlier in a cheap attempt to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and I are unsympathetic to the Burberry workers who are losing their jobs. It is a tragedy for those workers who face redundancy. Anybody who grew up in a household in which there has been worklessness will know what a tragedy unemployment can be.

Don Touhig: I was simply quoting  The Guardian. I take it that, if its report was wrong, the hon. Gentleman has instructed his solicitors to take action.

Stephen Crabb: On Tuesday, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs held an inquiry into the closure of the Treorchy plant. It involved robust questioning of the management of Burberry and of representatives of the GMB. I do not recall seeing the right hon. Gentleman there, but a lot of people who were present will have made up their minds about the quality of evidence presented by the GMB and the Burberry management.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), who originally suggested holding an inquiry on globalisation and its impact on Wales. It was a timely recommendation, given the Burberry situation and Tata's takeover of Corus, and the Committee is finding the inquiry worth while. I applaud the campaigning skills of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who, along with others, has helped to generate a very effective publicity campaign on behalf of Burberry workers. However, it is not simply a question of whether one is against the workers at the Burberry factory and pro-management, or against the management. It is much more complex, as it goes to the heart of the challenges of globalisation and the way in which they impact on Wales.
	I was interested to read in the press comments by various celebrities involved in the campaign. I do not question the sincerity of their remarks about Burberry, but if they genuinely wish to contribute to the debate about globalisation and the challenges facing Welsh manufacturers, as well as making critical comments about Burberry management they should ask difficult questions about what is happening to our skills base, the quality of science education in this country and a range of difficult issues. The battle of globalisation will be won or lost on whether the country can innovate and whether our education and skills base is of sufficient quality.
	The article in  The Western Mail this morning said:
	More than half of the adults in Wales have poor numeracy skills and one in four has a reading and writing age of 11 or below.
	Education and skills standards in Wales remain some of the worst in the UK, and the gap between English and Welsh standards is widening, which is a national scandal. The number of young people not in full-time education, employment or training is higher in Wales than it was in 1997. Those youngsters have fallen through the net of employment and training. The Prince's Trust in Wales says that 100,000 young people in Wales are simply doing nothing. Across the UK, about 1.25 million 15 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training, which is a national scandal. Exclusions, unauthorised absences and truancy in Welsh schools have all risen in recent years, and that is part of the challenge that we must address if we are to succeed in facing up to the issue of globalisation and the extent to which the Welsh and British economies can continue to prosper and succeed in a globalised world.
	Burdens on UK businesses are relevant, too. The cumulative burden of new regulation on Welsh firms since 1998 comes to 2.2 billion, which is an enormous sum for a small economy such as Wales. That figure is based on the Government's own regulatory impact assessment.
	Economic success is not constant. It requires continuous improvement, and when you look at the weak UK productivity it is clear that we cannot allow the regulatory burden to continue on this upward curve. Small to medium enterprises employ more than half of the UK's private sector work force. If we want to realise the vision of a UK economy which is competitive, ensuring wealth and opportunities, these businesses need to be supported, rather than stunted by overly prescriptive and burdensome regulation.
	Those are not my words, but the words of the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce. Many small companies in Wales, which are the job creators of the Welsh economy, face huge burdens.
	It is important that we face up to the challenges of globalisation. It is not just about maintaining our quality of life but about ensuring that we maintain high-quality public services. We have discussed the challenge of climate change, which is one of the key challenges of our time. A key domestic challenge concerns our ability to maintain high-quality public services. In peripheral rural areas of Wales such as Pembrokeshire, critical public services have been eroded, which may be a pointer to the way in which things will develop across the board. Under Labourthe party that claims to be the founder of the NHSNHS dentistry in Wales has been allowed to wither and, in some parts of the country, services have been decimated.

Nia Griffith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only a couple of weeks ago Mill Lane dental surgery in Llanelli had its official opening? That brand new, state-of-the-art dental surgery offers the services of five NHS dentists to a town that encompasses 12,000 residents.

Stephen Crabb: Anyone would welcome five new dentists but, given the shortfall across Wales, that addition is a drop in the ocean. Someone in Pembrokeshire who has access to an NHS dentist is a lucky individual indeed, as the vast majority of people are forced to go private. My constituents have every right to ask why they cannot claim back from the public purse the additional costs that they incur by using a private dentist because NHS provision in their area no longer exists.
	What makes my constituents doubly angry about the situation is that they believed the pledge made by the Prime Minister in 1999, when he said that within the next two years everyone would once again be able to see an NHS dentist. They believed that stuff. In Preseli Pembrokeshire in 1997 they supported the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in droves. The previous Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire was elected with a 9,000 Labour majority. The people of Preseli Pembrokeshire were part of the enormous bank of good will that the Prime Minister inherited in 1997 and which sustained him in his first months in office. He pocketed their good will and has given them nothing in return. They feel badly let down.
	People are instinctively generous, I believe. They will forgive honest mistakes. They will even be tolerant of policies that they do not support but which are implemented with integrity. However, they will not forgive false and broken promises. The same pattern of broken promises and lack of transparency is apparent in the proposals to decimate the network of tax and revenue offices in Wales. I have a letter dated 28 July last year from the Paymaster General, in which she stated:
	There are no current plans for closure of Haverfordwest or any other offices in West Wales.
	She signed off the letter cheerily with the comment:
	I hope your constituents will find this letter helpful.
	No, they did not find the letter helpful, because just months down the line they are staring at a massive programme of HMRC office closures, which will lead to the loss of about 70 high quality jobs in my constituency.
	We see the same pattern in respect of Withybush hospital, the main district general hospital in my constituency. Time and again my constituents are given specific promises and assurances, from the Dispatch Box or in writing from Ministers, which appear utterly worthless weeks or months later. I refer specifically to an assurance that was given in November 2005 about the future of Withybush hospital by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who said:
	I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no plans whatever to downgrade Withybush hospital. The generous additional funding that that and many other trusts throughout Wales have receivedthe local health board in Pembrokeshire has received a 28 per cent. increase in the past three yearsmeans that they should be able to manage.[ Official Report, 30 November 2005; Vol. 440, c. 250.]
	Just weeks after that statement was made at the Dispatch Box, proposals were published recommending the closure or the radical downgrading of my local district general hospital. What are local people supposed to make of that?
	I am conscious that time is running out, but this will be the story of the Assembly elections in two months and of the general election in two years

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Paul Flynn: Towards the end of her speech, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was unwise enough to mention a constituent of mine, whom she quoted as an exemplar of a politician in Wales, the young man whom all others should follow. She thought he was elected, but he is a nominated member of council. I think it is my duty to inform the House a little more about this person. I would not mention him normally. I know that his inspiration in politics is the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), so there is a certain poverty of ambition there.
	As the young man has been cited as typifying the brave new world that the Conservatives are offering, we should know a little more about him. He has been kind enough to inform us about himself on the splendid MySpace website. He is remarkably frank. He gives a potted history of his life. He states:
	I've evolved from a little whining pussy to a thrill seeking wreckhead to a Conservative who still loves the wreckups.
	He was asked, as part of the formula of the site, about what he had done in the past month. On 16 June 2006 he was asked whether he had taken drugs that month. He said yes. The next question was:
	Have you stolen anything this month?
	and he said yes. He was asked about his ambitions in life, and he said his ambition was politics. Asked why he wanted to go into politics, he said that he wanted it for the power, the flash suits and the money. Here we have a young man who may well become a bit of a cult figure, or a hero

David Davies: rose

Paul Flynn: I am delighted to give way to this young man's hero.

David Davies: I have never seen the website and I do not really know the gentleman myself. I presume that there could be something ironic in what he says: if he is after power, money and flash suits, he will not want to follow me on to the Back Benches, as he will not see much of any of those from where I am sitting.

Paul Flynn: It is painful for me to recall my own experience when I was first elected. The first school I visited was Bassaleg school in my constituency. I was discussing politics in the sixth form and I recall one particularly difficult memberhe might have something in common with the young man I have mentionedwho was a bit of a troublemaker in the class. I advised him, in my generous way of helping young people, that the best thing to do in life was to take up politics. That young member is in his place opposite as the hon. Member for Monmouth, so I regard that as the worst political mistake of my life. [Hon. Members: It's your fault!]
	In order to convey a somewhat brighter picture of Newport, I would like to mention a few other young people.

Elfyn Llwyd: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off this subject, may I say one word on behalf of the individual from Monmouth to whom the hon. Gentleman referred? At least he is more honest about drugs than the leader of the Conservative party, is he not?

Paul Flynn: That is a fascinating question [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) will reconsider those words.

Elfyn Llwyd: I was more struck with the young man's response to the question about drug taking than with that of the Leader of the Opposition.

Paul Flynn: I would love to argue more about this, but there is a shortage of time.
	I shall mention three other young people in my constituency, whom I remember had some distinctionRichard Whittaker, Adam Brustad and James Sadler, who will be performing in the Meze Lounge tonight a newly written song called Land of my Mothers, which is part of the political agenda. There is even a song called, Lebanon is Burning and another one about Animal Farm. Those are three splendid idealistic young men, marvellous examples of their generation, who believe in things other than what this gentleman I have quoted believes indrugs, theft, wreck-ups, smart suits and making money. There is an optimistic side, and if people want an exemplar of what young people can achieve, they would be better off in the Meze Lounge in Newport tonight, listening to the first performance of Land of my Mothers.
	There are just two points that I would like to contribute to the debate. The first is about pensions in Wales, one of my long-standing interests. The Pensions Bill is currently before Parliament, and I want to congratulate the new Labour Government on introducing the classic Labour policy of linking pensions with earnings. Sadly, that will not happen until 2012.
	Yesterday I received an astonishing answer from the Government about the state of the national insurance fund, which has to have a contingency fund within it. It is set at 16.7 per cent. The money in the fund as a balanceabove what is requiredis 62.3 per cent.nearly four times what the contingency should be. The contingency has never been used in recent years. If unemployment doubled, for example, it would be necessary to use it. Thus we already have in the national insurance fund 38 billion, accounting for the 62.3 per cent. figure that I mentioned.
	The question I asked yesterday was what the balance would be in 2012. The answer was the astonishing figure of 74 billion. We have to think about an amount like 74 billionway over what is required for a contingency. Thus the link between pensions and earnings could be restored tomorrow. The great Bill going through Parliament will restore that link eventually and will greatly benefit women, reducing the period of entitlement for pensions from 39 years to 30 years. However, the answer I received is based on that happening. It is happening soon, so why wait until 2012?
	I urge the Government to reconsider the measure, because pensioners want the restoration of that link. In our 10 years in government, I believe that we have had an honourable record. Although the link was not restored, which was a great shame, the other changes madethe pension credit, winter fuel allowance and other allowanceshave made up for that. The amount that has been given to pensioners in that time is equivalent to what would have been given if we had restored the link in 1997. The pensioners who need the link restored and the extra money are the ones who were robbed almost every year from 1980 by the previous Government, who made a yearly salami cut in pensions increases by increasing pensions according to prices, not earnings.
	I hope that the Government will reconsider that issue in the Pensions Bill. When the Public Administration Committee talked to the civil service colleges about the changes in social security legislation that have taken place in the past 20 years, the point was made that in the 1980s and early 1990s, such legislation was made by putting a finger in the air, finding which way the wind was blowing and doing what was politically correct. After an examination of the evidence, the basis of the Turner report and so on, the Pensions Bill is introducing a policy that I believe should command all sections of the House in the same way as Barbara Castle's policy did in 1975. There is a chance of working together, but I believe that the amount in the account is now at such a level that we can look for a speedy restoration of the link and not wait until 2012.
	On civil service jobs, I am speaking from a position of success in Newport. I recall a story told to me by an American business man who had settled in Wales and received a visit from a journalist from the west coast of America who was looking to write an article about footloose industry and see whether Wales was a suitable place to relocate. She told the business man that she had three questions about Wales as a place for new industry. The questions were along these lines: Are there problems with the pollution from the coal mines and steelworks?, Is it true that if somebody does not speak Welsh, their neighbours are likely to burn down their house? and Is it true that social life is poor because the pubs and cinemas are shut on Sundays? My American friend said, Goodness me, is this what they think about Wales on the west coast of America? The journalist said, No; this is what they told me about Wales when I asked them in London yesterday.
	I believe that one of the greatest obstacles that we have to getting jobs into Wales is the perception not on the other side of the world, but in England. When there was a vote to get the Patent Office into Newport, the choice was between there and Norwich; I would be embarrassed to say how few people chose Newport. That relocation is now the example quoted in the Lyons review as a great success. People came in great numbers, and although they had to be dragged kicking and screaming, they settled happily and liked the area and surroundings, and felt that the whole ethos of life was superior. Those people have stayed since and are now living out their retirement years there, so the project was a huge success. New skills have been learned in the city. Where people were stevedores, coal trimmers, puddlers and sample passers, their grandchildren are now the statisticians and patent examiners. A great transformation has taken place.
	We have built up this huge centre of excellence in relocated civil service jobs. It would be ironic if there were now a move out of the city and we lost jobs in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, because it now has 4,000 civil servants and is becoming a mini-Whitehall; those civil service jobs have replaced the jobs that were lost, and it is right that they should be there.
	I believe that there is a strong case to be made against the idea of centralising the organisation, perhaps in three sections in Wales. It is currently spread throughout Wales, and I have great sympathy with what the last speaker said about that. We need more than just small face-to-face areas where people can see civil servants. As we heard, HMRC receives a high level of complaints through its call centres. People like to have a face-to-face interview. There are other factors. In Newport we have a very high number of immigrants and other people whose first languages are neither English nor Welsh. That creates difficulties, although there is a section dealing with employers that has a specialist network.
	There is a strong argument for keeping these centres going. I understand the pressures that have arisen. Now that the two sectionsInland Revenue and Customshave come together, they have a certain amount of excess space. There is a powerful case for saying that they must not waste that space and must put it to proper use. I make a plea for maintaining those sections in Pontypool and Newport and letting them grow so that we can build up a public service ethos that was not there to such an extent before, but is now part of the prosperous future for all of Wales.

Adam Price: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). I hope that the segment in his speech in which he attempted to raise the consciousness of metropolitan minds beyond this Chamber as to our contemporary Welsh reality is featured on Today in Parliament. He certainly gets my vote.
	We are on the cusp of a very exciting phase in Welsh politicsnot before time, some would say. The Government of Wales Act 2006 gives us an opportunity to secure a comprehensive set of powers in order to transform the quality of life of the people of Wales. Although it is limited in breadth and somewhat complicated in naturequasi-legislative powers is not something that we would write on our bannersit gives us the opportunity to move forward. We would like it to be extended, because certain important areas of public life and public policy need to be addressed.
	As has already been flagged up in that august publication,  The Western Mail, I want to concentrate my remarks on the issue of policing and youth justice, which has been mentioned by several Members, including the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). After the March elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales will be the only devolved institution that does not have some responsibility for the criminal justice system and policing, which is being devolved in Northern Ireland.
	The Assembly has some responsibility for crime prevention, broadly because of its responsibilities in health, education, housing and so on, and more specifically because of its involvement in areas such as community safety partnerships, domestic abuse, youth work and substance abuse, and its part-funding of the police service in Wales. That overlap means that it is now time to devolve aspects of the criminal justice system, starting with policing and youth justice, where there are clearly matching powers. The right hon. Member for Torfaen mentioned the Home Office, and the review of the splitting of its functions makes this an appropriate time to consider how the National Assembly fits in with the proposed new structure.
	Although Wales is not immune to influences across the whole United Kingdom in terms of serious organised crime and terrorism, the pattern of crime is different from that in England. We do not yet have the problem of gang-related gun crime, although I take on board the comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). The pattern of crime is more opportunistic than organised, and on a smaller scale. Because of that, we need a different approach akin to that taken in other small countries such as Finland, or that which has been taken in Northern Ireland over the past decade.
	We need a new approach, because to some extent the current approach is failing and is not as effective as it could be. I do not regard the high imprisonment rate in the UK as a symbol of success but a symbol of failure. That is not the fault of the current Government alone; it is deeply embedded, and is the fault of successive Governments. The rate is 50 per cent. higher than in France, and 100 times higher than in Finland, believe it or not.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman may be coming to this, but does he agree that that is partly because of the abject failure to deal in any coherent and empathic way with the problem of drug addiction in this country? That is all the more ironic given that we were pretty much the model for the rest of the world until about 1974. Until the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the British Government were pursuing fairly strategically coherent policies.

Adam Price: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come to that matter in my concluding remarks.
	I am worried about the position of children and young people who are in custody. As Rod Morgan, the recently resigned chair of the Youth Justice Board, said:
	We know that criminalising young children...is generally counter-productive.
	In some circumstances where young people and children are guilty of grave crimes, they need to be put in a secure closed environment, but for most children and young people it is criminogenicit makes them more likely to commit crimes when they come out than if other interventions had been used. The particular problem of which we are all aware in Wales is that 84 per cent. of children and young people from Wales are imprisoned in England. This month, the Parc youth offender institution is, supposedly, expanding its number of beds from 34 to 64, but that increase has already been swallowed up by the increase in the number of young people and children in Wales in prison. According to evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the number went up 25 per cent. in just six months last year. That is the pattern across England and Wales. The number of children in prison has doubled over the past decade. Most of the young people and children in Wales are in Ashfield, yet the Youth Justice Board has a target that 90 per cent. of all children should be within 50 miles of their home. It is scandalousand I know that that view is widely shared across the spectrum.
	What should we do? I think that we should create a Welsh equivalent of the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Irelanda Welsh youth justice board that could get to grips with the problem of a lack of places for children and young people. We should also adopt some of the innovative policies that that agency has been following for some years in Northern Irelandfor example, the use of youth conference orders, which bring the young offender, the victim and the community together to look at the appropriate way forward, based on the principle of restorative justice, which has a lot of support in other parties. That is similar to the reparation orders that were in the Children Act 2004 but are hardly ever used. Because of the nature of community life in Wales, those principles would be appropriate in our setting.
	We need to phase out prison, certainly for the under-16s, as recommended over 10 years ago by the former chief inspector of prisons. Other secure environments are more appropriate for young offenders at that age.

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman is very intelligent and must realise that young people under the age of 16 do not go to prison. They go to a secure environment. For him to talk about prison in that emotive fashion is to perpetuate a certain inaccuracy about the justice system.

Adam Price: Young offender institutions are part of the Prison Service; they are part of the prison estate. That is well recognised. Of course, we have split sites in many cases as well. I argue that there are other more appropriate interventions and that we should be looking at a wider range of residential settings: both secure closed settings and open settings. Prescoed was one such open setting. Because of the problem of overcrowding, that was turned into an open adult site, with all the attendant problems. I would have imagined that the hon. Gentleman had some sympathy in those circumstances.
	I turn to the issue of substance misuse. As we know, most crime is drug or alcohol-related. We need to improve and extend the detoxification and rehabilitation facilities and services available for substance misusers. We also need to start to treat misusers not just as criminals but as patients suffering a chronic and debilitating sickness known as addiction. If they break the law to fund a habit, a properly funded and publicly owned probation service should work with other agencies to implement a personal plan to avoid offending, including, where appropriate, the use of medication. In my view, that should include as a treatment option the prescription of diamorphine, or injectable pharmaceutical heroin, in standard doses for long-term addicts. A pilot is under way in three areas of EnglandLondon, the north-east and Brightonand I understand that the preliminary results are encouraging. Clearly, we need to evaluate the pilot carefully, but if the results are positive we need to look at adding this as a treatment option for long-term heroin addicts.
	There have been extensive and large-scale studies in other countriesCanada, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Switzerlandso there is a body of research for us to draw upon. The German study showed, interestingly, that those prescribed diamorphine fared better in terms of their physical and mental health, and that an average of 8,500 was saved in terms of reduced crime. Two thirds of property crime is heroin-related, which is why the Home Office has decided to look at the pilot in this way.
	Medicalising the issue with heroin addictionother drugs have to be dealt with differentlyhas another benefit; it changes the perception of the drug among young people. Instead of its being seen as something illegal and in some way therefore exciting, it would be seen as a loser's drug, or as a medical problem that had to be dealt with. In Zurich, where they have had a 10-year pilot study of the medical prescription of heroin, there has been an 82 per cent. drop in new users, precisely for this reason.
	It is important that we stress that this should not be a free-for-all, nor is it legalisation; that is an entirely different debate. It should only be for people with long-term heroin dependencya last resort for those who have tried and failed with all other forms of treatment, including oral methadone. It should be done only under very strict and stringent medical conditions in close collaboration with the police.
	As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, this is not a new policy in the UK; it was known as the British model, and was the basic practice in dealing with heroin addicts from 1926 until 1968. Any GP still has the legal power to prescribe diamorphine or heroin to treat medical conditions, but must have a special licence to treat addicts with injectable heroin. There are currently three doctors in Wales who prescribe injectable heroin to addicts, so it is not an entirely new thing.
	The question is whether we have a systematic policy of looking at this matter, because the guidelines are unclear. To be fair, the Government, in their updated drugs strategy in 2002, promised to widen access to prescribed diamorphine for all those with a clinical need, and in May 2003 the national treatment agency for substance misuse said that prescription may be beneficial for some heroin misusers and gave a guarded endorsement of the practice.
	I think we lack a clear statement of policy that would give a lead to GPs, who may be receiving mixed messages at the moment about how this fits in with overall policy. If the evidence from the pilot is as encouraging as we understand, we could go forward and take a huge step towards breaking the power of heroin dealers and pushers on our streets. We could deprive organised crime of a core client base and make heroin trafficking unprofitable for the first time. We could free a new generation, and generations in the future, from addiction.
	I hope that we can build a cross-party consensus. Deprived areas have thousands of heroin addictscoalfield communities have a 27 per cent. higher incidence of heroin addictionand we owe it to those communities, and to the young people of the future as well, to think innovatively, to learn the lessons of the pilots and, if they are positive, to implement a new approach in our communities.

Don Touhig: As I consider Wales in the first decade of this new century, I identify one great challenge that we must address, and which is key to our future economic prosperity: the upskilling of our peoplegiving them the skills that they do not yet have so that we can attract the jobs that we do not yet have. An important milestone towards achieving that is the decision to locate the new defence training academy at St. Athan in the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). That is not only the right decision for Britain's armed forces; it is yet another instance of the Labour Government's commitment to investing in the Welsh economy.
	Since 1999, the Welsh economy has grown by 11 per cent.higher than the UK growth rate of 7 per cent.and more than 130,000 jobs have been created. The high wage, high growth, low unemployment economy that we in Wales currently enjoy should be contrasted with the economy in the Tory years when there was decay and desperation for our people. They offered nothing to the people of Wales.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) wants to keep awake; he has just entered the Chamber, but perhaps he needs to leave again and have another sleep. The Tories offered nothing to the people of Wales, and the electorate have rejected them time and again, as they will do yet again on 3 May.
	The new training facility at St. Athan also underlines the fact that Wales needs to move forward by becoming a knowledge-based economy. The new academy will provide high quality opportunities to grow innovative training schemes through partnerships between universities, further education colleges, Welsh business and industry and the Ministry of Defence. The success of the St. Athan bid serves as a lesson to all of us. In the coming years, in order to remain competitive we must ensure that companies investing and locating in Wales gain added value as a result. Above all, I believe that the training academy, by offering a partnership for Welsh business and industry to access the finest training facilities in the world, should serve as an example to Welsh universities and colleges.

Wayne David: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the defence training academy will bring tremendous benefit that will not only be focused on the vale of Glamorgan area, but will spread to the whole of south Wales, and that that benefit will in fact extend as far as Bristol and Carmarthen? It will be of great benefit, the like of which we will not have seen in south Wales in a generation.

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend is right. It offers Welsh business and industry and the whole economy of south-east Wales and Severn-side a great opportunity to access first-class training facilities.
	If we are truly to build a knowledge-based economy, our universities and colleges must be at the forefront. They have a vital role to play in translating research excellence into commercial innovation. Thanks to Labour's knowledge exploitation fund, Welsh business has been able to take advantage of the excellent research and technology at our Welsh universities. We must encourage Welsh companies to work more closely with universities and colleges so that they can gain access to knowledge and research to improve their competitiveness. Wales will not be able to survive as a low skill, low wage economy. We knew that when the Conservative party was in government.
	We should also take into account that party's opposition to the national minimum wage, aided and abetted by the indifference of the Welsh nationalists and the Liberal Democrats, and the fact that when it was in power it presided over the destruction of the finest industrial apprenticeship scheme the world has ever known. That is the record that the Conservative party delivered for the people of Wales, and the people of Wales will remember that on 3 May.

Adam Price: As the son of a miner, I was hardly indifferent during the miners' strike when the Tories were destroying our communities. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Plaid Cymru showed solidarity with the miners at that time.

Don Touhig: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's personal commitment. The point I was making was that when we spent 40-odd hours in this House voting through the minimum wage, Welsh nationalist Members exited themselves and went home to bed.

David Davies: As the grandson of a miner, can I point out that far more mines were shut down in the late 1960s during Wilson's Government than were ever closed under Mrs. Thatcher's Administration in the '70s and '80s?

Don Touhig: If the hon. Gentleman is so committed to the interests of the mining communities, I wish he had been on our side when we were fighting his party to give compensation to miners who had suffered a terrible life in the pits. I did not see his party campaigning on our side on that occasion.
	When my father went down the pit at the age of 14, in 1925, it was arm muscles that were important. When my grandchildren Rebekah and Jessica enter the workplace, it will be the muscles between their ears that they will need to develop. To put it simply, the people of Wales will have to go back to school if we are to close the skills gap. No one in full-time education today will have a job for life; everyone will have to re-train and re-skill throughout their working lives. For that reason, it is vital that, whatever might follow from objective 1 funding, it should first and last be used to educate and upskill our people. We got objective 1 funding for west Wales and the valleys because our gross domestic product was below that of the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe. At the end of the day, if we have invested heavily in infrastructure projects such as bypasses and multi-storey car parksworthy as they may bebut not given our people new skills, we will not be better off economically as a country.
	Wales needs to keep ahead of the change in the global economy that places a higher premium on knowledge, innovation, research and development. However, the plain fact is that our ability to attract potential investors will be based on the skills of our work force. We have already shown that we can do it. General Dynamics, which has the contract for developing and producing the MOD's Bowman communications system, came to my constituency despite advice from consultants who said, Do not go to Wales; you will not find the skills base. It ignored that advice, and now 700 highly skilled people are involved in research and design. Indeed, the company has spent 1.8 million on training in the past two years. If ever there was a potent symbol of the new Wales, it is the fact that General Dynamics is based at the Oakdale business park, on the site once occupied by the Oakdale colliery.
	When I think of entrepreneurship in Wales, I often remember when I was a councillor and 700 jobs were lost at Panteg steelworks, in Pontypool. Ian McGregor was running steel thenhe had not got to coaland he agreed to meet me. I asked if he intended to use funding from British Steel enterprises to provide seedcorn investment to help some of the redundant steel men to set up their own businesses. He was not rude, but he gave me a strange look and said that it had not occurred to him that anybody in Wales would want to start their own business. That was how Wales was perceived in those dayswhen the Tory Thatcher Government were out of touch and did not give a damn. Every time I walk past that statue out there, my blood runs cold, given what that person did to the economy and people of Wales.
	The implementation of the first ever entrepreneurial action plan for Wales, which seeks to put enterprise at the heart of our economic development policy, is certainly a step in the right direction. Wales accounts for nearly 15 per cent. of graduate business start-ups in the UK as a whole. However, more needs to be done to help those who are taking their first steps toward establishing a new business. Projects such as Venture Wales do excellent work in helping people to set up in business, but again, it needs to be better advertised. That means challenging the mindset in Wales. We have done much to eradicate poverty, but we still have to tackle something that, although it was touched on earlier, is rarely talked of: poverty of ambition. To me, poverty of ambition is just as real as the other form of poverty. The great socialist James Maxton once said that poverty is man-made and therefore open to change. Poverty of ambition is an attitude of mind, and it is up to us to change itto give people hope, self-confidence and self-esteem.
	Talented people have said to me that going to college or starting a business is not for them. The task that we face is to equip them with skills and confidence to meet the challenge, set up in business and set out on their own. Those who say that that is impossible should look at the example of Ireland, which in 2003 was called the most globalised economy in the world. We in Wales should be challenging for that title. However, to achieve that we need to focus heavily on using EU funding to provide the skills and technical innovation that modern business needs. I hope that in years to come, rather than talking about the Celtic tiger economy of Ireland, it will be the dragon economy of Wales that others will look to as the best example of the use of European funding.
	Come the Assembly elections in May, the choice will be clear. On the one hand, voters can choose a party led by Rhodri Morgan that is committed to a programme of innovation, training and social justice. On the other, they have the Tories who have betrayed Wales in the past, the nationalists who dream of separation but never dare say so, and the Lib Dems who, if jumping on a bandwagon was a crime, would be serial offenders. The message to the people of Wales is that if they vote for the Tories, the nationalists or the Lib Demsor worse, stay at homeon 3 May, they will wake up to a Tory-led coalition, a marriage of convenience. Wales would be led by a ragbag of mediocre politicians and that would only end in tears. The people of Wales deserve better than that.
	A vote for Labour on 3 May will ensure continued growth in public services, prosperity and a new self-confidence in Wales that our forefathers could only dream of, but which we are creating today.

David Davies: The Secretary of State began with his memories of the night of the referendum. In the words of Max Boyce, I was there. I had campaigned against a Welsh Assembly and voted against it. Had there been another referendum on devolution in Wales, I would almost certainly have become one of the few politicians to vote themselves out of a job.
	One of the reasons I stood for the Assembly was because I reflected the clear view of my constituents in south-east Wales and Monmouthshire who did not want a Welsh Assembly because they were afraid that it would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The Labour party is now trying to cloak itself in the mantle of the Union when it was the one to open up Pandora's box by embarking on that ill-thought-out constitutional reform. It was ill thought out because we now have a Parliament in Scotland, a power-sharing arrangement that sometimes works and sometimes does not work in Northern Ireland, and an Assembly for Walesbut the Government have not addressed the important issue of what we should do about England. More than 50 million taxpaying constituents in England do not have the same level of representation that we do in the Celtic nations. That is the question that needs to be answered before we go ahead with any further changes to the constitution.
	For that reason, I am concerned by calls that I hear from all over the place for more powers for the Welsh Assembly, but that would only increase the constitutional problems and be more likely to speed up the break-up of the United Kingdom. Apart from the constitutional problems

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman says that he hears calls from all over the place. One of those places is actually Nick Bourne and the Conservative group on the Welsh Assembly. Does he think that they should reconsider their position and oppose devolution completely?

David Davies: I am not aware that the Conservative group in the Welsh Assembly has officially published any proposals for the future of the Assembly. By the way, I shall try to keep my speech short. I like to take interventions, but I should point out to hon. Members that it is they who will not be able to speak if they intervene too many times.
	One reason why I would not like to see any further powers going to the Welsh Assembly is that it has not proved to be very good at using the powers it already has. For example, it has powers to raise taxation through the back door by capping funding to local government. It has done that by effectively changing the formula around in a way that means that rural areas lose out. Deprivation is calculated based on how many people are on benefits, rather than average incomes, for example. As a result, in Monmouthshire the council tax for a band D house was some 384 in 1997, but that has gone up to almost 1,000 now. The majority of houses have also moved from band D into band E, meaning that people have had an increase since 1997 of some 160 per cent. in their council tax, mainly as a result of the change in formula implemented by the Welsh Assembly.
	The Assembly also has powers in the health service, and we have seen what a disaster that has been. The health service in England is far better run than the health service in Wales

Chris Ruane: Thank you very much.

David Davies: That is not something of which the hon. Gentleman should be proud. Indeed, he should be ashamed of it. It is not that the health service is in an especially good state in England, simply that it is worse in Wales.
	In many rural areas, getting an ambulance is like waiting for Godot. Recently, a lady in my area made a 999 call for an ambulance. It turned up three hours later because the drivers had no satnav or maps, and got lost. By the time they arrived at her house, they had run out of fuel. They wanted her husband to fill a billycan with petrol so that they could get the lady to a hospital. That disgraceful anecdote about the ambulance service is only of many that I could tell.
	Even more worrying is the second-class treatment suffered by many people in Wales on the waiting lists. A gentleman called Vincent Davis, a constituent of mine, was diagnosed in 2001 with a rare form of cancer and told that he was terminally ill. He was treated at the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead with yttrium octreotide therapy. Three cycles of that reduced his tumour by 50 per cent. and gave him several extra years of life with his family. When his cancer returned, he went back to see his doctor in Wales. His consultant, Mr. Caplinone of the UK's leading experts in that particular form of cancersent him a letter. My constituent was shocked to be told that the health authority would not fund his treatment because he was living in Wales. I took up the matter with Health Commission Wales, which said that it was not prepared to fund my constituent's treatment because it had not been approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Subsequently, I showed the commission a letter from NICE's chief executive, Andrew Dillon, stating that the Department of Health had indicated that it was
	not acceptable for local trusts to use the absence of NICE guidelines as an excuse for not prescribing treatments.
	However, that applies only in Englandthe Welsh Assembly does its own thing and has said that it will not pay for treatment not approved by NICE.
	The treatment that my constituent needs costs 15,000. Health Commission Wales is prepared, in effect, to sentence a man to death for that amount of money by saying that it is not prepared to offer treatment that has not been approved by NICE. That is despite the fact that one of the UK's leading cancer specialists maintains that the treatment works, and that it has worked on this gentleman in the past. That is a shocking state of affairs, and proves that the NHS does not extend to the UK's regions, where people get a second-class health service.

David Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sure that hon. Members of all parties have similar stories. Is it not paradoxical that the Welsh Assembly, which appears to operate under financial constraints when it comes to the treatment that he has described, considers it appropriate to devote 30 million to free prescriptions for all patients, regardless of whether they need them?

David Davies: That is an important point. It is strange that I, a Member of Parliament, can get free prescriptions when others cannot. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will take up the case that I have reported, as my constituent will be dead in a very short time if no one is prepared to fund his treatment.
	That is the background to my opposition to calls for extra powers for the Welsh Assembly. I strongly disagree with Plaid Cymru's calls for policing and justice to be devolved. Putting to one side questions about whether the Assembly could do a better job and the constitutional issues involved, I tend to agree with what the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said about involving the Assembly in such matters, rather then devolving them to it. I like to think that I know a little bit about policing. I completed the parliamentary scheme, and some of the training needed to become a special constable. We all agree that terrorism and organised crime are the two big problems that we face, but the proposal to make Wales' four police authorities answerable to a body that is not the same as the one to which England's 39 are answerable will not make it easier to tackle either.
	I also take issue with Plaid Cymru's attitude to our armed forces. There are differences in this House about whether we should have gone into Iraq and about our involvement in Afghanistan, but most hon. Members want to support our armed forces. Both the Territorial Army and the Royal Engineers have bases in my constituencymany of their personnel have been in Iraq, or indeed are still thereand I will do everything that I can, wholeheartedly, to support them. I am shocked by calls from Plaid Cymru to keep the military out of schools. We should be celebrating our armed services; we should be encouraging school pupils to join the armed forces, to go out and get a trade and to get specialist skills of the sort that we very much need in Wales. It is a shocking state of affairs when people make such calls.
	The Government cannot cover themselves with much glory, either. Our armed forces are not always earning even the minimum wage, especially when they are out on deployment. They come back to accommodation that is sub-standard and would not be suitable in some cases for people who have newly arrived in this country. So the Government have to do a lot more if they want to support the armed services not simply talk about it, but ensure that they are properly paid and properly housed.
	We had a few bizarre history lessons earlier. I was writing down some of the things that the Secretary of State for Wales said about the previous Conservative Government and I am afraid I simply did not recognise the picture that he painted. I was born in 1970, so I cannot remember the late 1960s when twice as many coal mines were shut down by Labour than were ever shut down by Mrs. Thatcher's Administrationtwice as many in four years, I believe, as Mrs. Thatcher in eight. Of course, that is something that the National Union of Mineworkers, the Labour party and the trade unions would rather forget about.
	I can remember in 1979 walking past the Royal Gwent hospital, where there was a strike going on. People could not get into hospital because the hospitals were all out on strike. I remember being told by my parents that at the same time dead people could not be buried because the gravediggers were out on strike. The streets could not be cleaned because the roadsweepers were out on strike. The whole country ground to a halt in 1979 and the Prime Minister did not even seem to realise when he came back from the Caribbean that there was some sort of crisis.
	The Government try to sell a good story to us. Now they talk about inflation. Of course the figures look low because they do not take into account house prices, council tax and all the other things that people need. Of course the unemployment figures look good because everyone is signing on the sick, which is a very good way of covering up things. Everyone has got a bad back or they are stressed. Of course, the headline figure for income tax looks low because they have allowed everyone to come into the higher tax bracket and they have taxed everything that moves.
	The Government talk about their commitment to human rights. What sort of a Government are they who cannot deport serial rapists to Somalia, but can spend 10,000 chartering a jet to pick up a load of people who have been fighting with a terrorist organisation, bring them back to Britain and release them a few hours later to walk the streets, probably even backdating their benefit payments as well? I have no doubt those people are planning their next sojourn to the jihadi front line.

Wayne David: May I ask the hon. Gentleman this question?

Chris Ruane: What is he on?

Wayne David: No, my question is slightly different. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), when he was Secretary of State for Wales, returned some moneys from Wales to London. Would the hon. Gentleman have been in favour of that?

David Davies: I do not believe that that happened. I think that the hon. Gentleman will discover that what the former Secretary of State for Wales did was a technical accounting trick that allowed him to draw down money for a road scheme that would otherwise have gone back to the Treasury automatically because it would not have been spent during that financial year as surveys were still being done. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that my right hon. Friend did an excellent job in improving transport links to deprived valley constituencies so that real inward investment could go in and real jobs could be created.
	The fact of the matter is that the Welsh Assembly under Labour has failed in virtually every area where it has policy control. The last thing that we need to do is to give it further powers. The message to the people of Wales at the Assembly elections is, If you support the health service, if you want to see improvements in education and transport and, above all, if you want to stop the outrageous increases in council tax that have been going on over the past seven years160 per cent.vote Conservative at the next Assembly elections.

Martin Caton: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), if only because it means that he has finished ranting.
	I enjoyed the Secretary of State's opening remarks and especially appreciated his emphasis on the need to tackle climate change. I agree with that priority, so I take this opportunity to recommend to the Wales Office team my private Member's Bill, which would enable local planning authorities to set higher standards for energy efficiency and low carbon energy sources in their development plans than those in building regulations. The Bill is supported by the Welsh Local Government Association and 270 Members. I am sure that when my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Wales Office have studied it they, too, will be enthusiastic supporters. Perhaps they could have a word with their colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government and persuade them to give the Bill a fair wind from now on.
	On St. David's day, 2007, it is appropriate to look back over the decade since the Labour Government came to power. It is absolutely true, as the Secretary of State said, that an enormous amount has been achieved that has markedly improved the lives of the people of Wales, especially the least well off. Today, my constituency of Gower is a different place from what it was in 1997, when it suffered the scourge of high unemployment, especially among the young, scandalously low rates of pay and acute poverty for a fair proportion of older constituents, and when there was a sense, especially in the old mining and steel villages, of being in an irreversible downward spiral.
	That has all changed. People's lives have improved, thanks in no small part to the actions of the Labour Government and the Welsh Assembly Government. However, I do not want simply to trumpet those successes.

Hywel Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Caton: I am sorry but I shall not give way, because if I take less than the allotted time, everybody else will be able to speak.
	Central to the concerns of my constituents is the provision of public services, with particular concern about the UK Government's apparent attitude towards the future delivery of the services for which they are still responsible in Wales. People in Wales are surprised and alarmed that a Labour Government, again and again, look to the use of the private sector and free market competition to provide what have always been regarded as core public sector service responsibilities. People are conscious, and grateful, that Wales has not experienced the worst of that approach in the health and education sectors, because responsibility for them is devolved and the Welsh Assembly Government are not following the English lead, with trust hospitals and schools and the establishment of winner and loser competitions where patients and children are the potential losers.
	The National Assembly is to be congratulated on taking quite a different approach, which is based on honouring the public service ethos, building on it and developing services around the strong sense of community, mutuality and local ownership that still exists in Wales. That is the right way forward and I hope the Assembly sticks to it. I am sure it will.
	Vital public service functions delivered in Wales are still the responsibility of UK Departments, however, where enthusiasm for moving to a commissioner and contractor structure appears to be strong, even though it is justified by precious little evidence. Like many colleagues, I was contacted by a considerable number of probation workers living in my constituency who cannot understand the rationale for abolishing the national probation service, only to replace it with a competitive market that will take away local accountability in the process. After yesterday's vote on the Offender Management Bill, I fear that there will be a marked reduction in the quality of service, with the real danger of an increase in reoffending.
	Similarly, I have been lobbied by employees at the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency in Swansea who believe that preparations are under way to throw them to the market to reduce costs. Their fear and their belief is that that will be achieved by a diminution in standards if the consultants' investigations recommend wholesale outsourcing, as they suspect. We have already seen what has happened to the Ministry of Defence in Llangennech, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), where some of my constituents work. Jobs are being rationalised away on the most dubious grounds.
	I shall concentrate my brief remarks on what is happening to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in Wales, to which the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) have already referred. The staff of HMRC are disillusioned and angry about what is being done to their service and are trying to secure change before it is too late.
	The HMRC is of course a fairly new creation, combining the responsibilities of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Even before the merger, both the old departments had undergone considerable reorganisation, but nothing had prepared the civil servants for the announcement on 16 November last year of the department's intention to shed 25,000 jobs across the UK by 2011, closing hundreds of local offices in the process. If that goes ahead, the impact in Wales will be particularly acute, with something like 1,000 jobs at risk. Threatened with closure are the Aberystwyth office, the Haverfordwest office, the Holyhead office, the Llanelli office, the Bridgend office, the Pontypridd office, the Porthmadog office and others. Yet more are proposed for downgrading.
	Understandably, the Public and Commercial Services union, which represents the employees affected, is focusing on the impact that that will have on the lives of their members and their families, and the economic consequences for the communities where offices are planned for closure and where jobs will be removed. However, it also makes a powerful case about the likely impact on the work of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and draws attention to how extremely centralising the proposed new structures would be, if and when introduced.
	One of the specific functions of HMRC is called debt management and bankingthe old collector of taxes rolewhich involves collecting duties from customers who have not paid their taxes on time and which is to be centralised in Cardiff. That is an alarming prospect when one learns that there is already a backlog of 1 million unworked and unanswered pieces of correspondence in large processing offices, such as Cardiff, around the country. In fact, processingthings such as the capture of self-assessment tax returns and ensuring that pay-as-you-earn customers have the correct amount of tax deducted from paywill be centralised in Cardiff and Wrexham by 2010. The fear is that that is bound to be bad news for customers throughout Wales.
	At least Cardiff and Wrexham are in Wales, however. VAT registration jobs that are now based in west Wales are going to Grimsby and Wolverhampton. Capital gains tax inquiries, which were once dealt with by teams across Wales, are also now to be dealt with by one team in Cardiff. That approach is reflected in plans for many of the HMRC's functions in Wales. We face the loss of operational intelligence, detection and business services under the departmental plans. The shift is away from the local, towards the centre, and it seems to go against much of recent Government rhetoric.
	The union tells me that there is no senior civil servant with direct managerial control in HMRC in Wales. There is no regional or national forum in HMRC in Wales in which management and trade unions can meet to negotiate and find solutions to problems specific to Wales. There is to be new investment in something called local compliance, where staff will have the job of detecting customers who have not paid the correct tax or have not declared themselves to the authorities, but those jobs are going outside Wales.
	Indeed, in HMRC, local compliance is a misleading description. The local compliance zone for Wales is Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with the top civil servants based in Scotland. The PCS union estimates that the distances involved in covering this structure result in some 100 plane journeys a month by senior civil servants in local compliance alone. The negative environmental impact and the colossal carbon footprint do not just result from air travel. With the new structures, many middle managers now have staff under them from all over Wales and beyond. They are clocking up tens of thousands of road miles trying to keep in regular touch with their juniors.
	It is right, however, to say that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs does not exist just to provide jobs for civil servants. Its function is to provide a high-quality service to its customers. Is it fulfilling that function with its new approach and structure? Apparently it is not, if a million pieces of correspondence are lying unanswered, and the constituents who contact me to complain about the weeks that they have to wait for responses to important queries are anything go by. Problem solving will certainly not be helped by removing the link between the customer and her or his local office.
	Looking at the proposals, I have a sense of dj vu. A few years back, before the merger, Customs and Excise decided to remove customs officers from the Welsh ports and to work in future on a basis of risk assessment from centralised England locations. That was a mistake then, and this is a mistake now. Surely it would be far better to think again and set the objective of improving the working of the department on the basis of local services and local management, delivering for local people. That is the direction that we should be heading in and that is the direction that I keep hearing Ministers say they want to head in. Let us make a start with Revenue and Customs and let us get back to properly respecting and valuing our public servants, whether at local, Welsh Assembly or UK Government level.

Hywel Williams: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton). May I say how much I agreed with almost everything that he said, and how much I profoundly disagreed with so much of what the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) said? Were a stranger to listen to the debateI am sure that there are people who know little about Welsh politicshe or she would find the Secretary of State's earlier claim that my party elected to go into coalition with the Tories frankly incredible, as the two preceding speeches clearly demonstrate.
	We had a debate yesterday outside this place about the purpose of the Welsh day debate. What is it for? Looking at the attendance here today and the number of Members wanting to speak, we see that it is clearly an important forum. I cannot remember in my short time in this place a time limit on speeches in such a debate, which is significant. The debate gives hon. Members from Wales the opportunity to talk about detailed issues in their constituencies, and that is certainly one of the things that I intend to do in my few minutes.
	Given that it is St. David's day, I can tell the House that Dewi Sant said:
	Na ddiystyrwch y pethau bychain
	or
	Do not disregard the small things.
	He also said, Cadw'r ffydd or Keep the faith. I intend to do both in my speech, or at least I will try.
	Looking at the purpose of the debate, we see that there is the possibility of scrutiny and review, and of examining something that the Secretary of State has put great emphasis on, which is the partnership between this place and the Assembly. We also have the opportunity to put forward some policies.
	I want to scrutinise and review one of the points that has been raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Gower and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)the whole saga of HMRC. I should preface my remarks by expressing my concern that over the last few years we have seen a great deal of centralisation of Government services in Wales. We had a long battle in Porthmadog in my constituency about the proposal that the Department for Work and Pensions office should close, which it eventually did. Its functions have been transferred to a central office the other side of Bangor. That is an actual centralisation and an actual closure. Now we have the proposals to close HMRC offices all over Wales, particularly in Gwynedd, in Porthmadog and Bangor.
	I should also say that it is not just Government services that are being withdrawn from what are seen as peripheral communitiesthey are not peripheral to the people who live there, of course. I hear from my colleague, Alun Ffred Jones, the Assembly Member campaigning in the election in Bethesda, that two banks there, NatWest and HSBC, have closed. The fact that there are now no banks in Bethesda causes particular difficulties to local businesses with what one might think are trivial things, such as getting change in order to be able to give the correct change to customers.
	Public service jobs though, such as those in DWP and HMRC, are very valuable to rural communities in particular, where such opportunities are rare. They are steady, long term, pensionable and comparatively well paid in a local economy that is increasingly casualised and part-time. We see valuable jobs migrating to already prosperous centres. HMRC proposes to move jobs to Wrexham, Swansea and Cardiff, so that those centres will grow. That is part of deliberate Government policy.
	That raises the question of what sort of co-ordination has gone on between the Government here and the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly Government is working hard, using hard-won European money to create much needed jobs and prosperity in the west and in the valleys, and that investment is very welcome. At the same time, many good jobs that we need in our areas are being taken away by the policies of the Government here.
	An example that rankles with me is the likely fate of the Welsh language telephone line run from Porthmadog in my constituency. The line has highly experienced staff who have been running it for many years. That line is likely to move to Cardiff. As we all know, in Cardiff the labour market is very tight indeed, particularly in respect of those who have the valuable extra qualification of speaking Welsh. I am a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and last week we heard evidence from British Telecom, which told us that it recently advertised for a Welsh-speaking worker for a good job in Cardiff. There was not a single applicant, yet there are highly experienced people in Porthmadog who, for many years, have run a Welsh language telephone line, which is being shut down. That line is moving to Cardiff, whether or not there are the workers to run it.
	In Porthmadog, the staff can provide services in both languages. Two for the price of one is a slogan that works for supermarkets, but apparently HMRC does not see things that way. One has to ask the Government where the language planning is. Where is the co-ordination between HMRC and the Welsh Language Board? As far as I can see, there has been none, yet we are rushing onwards headlong. That is a failure of policy, as far as serving the people of Wales, particularly rural Wales, is concerned, and there has been a failure of co-ordination with Assembly policies, too.
	I should like to turn to a proposal on passport services that was little remarked on when it was made a couple of weeks ago. The proposal is that the first interview for passports should be conducted in centres in Wrexham, Swansea, Aberystwyth and Newport, and a face-to-face interview will be required. Interestingly, in the documents published, it was acknowledged that there would be difficulties in Anglesey, Gwynedd and Pembrokeshire, but the system that we are to have in Wales will involve centralisation in Wrexham, Swansea, Aberystwyth and Newport. What is to happen to people from Caernarfon, St. David's and Amlwch who want passports? We are told in the document that so-called remote areas will be served by webcam links. As I said earlier, remote from where? They are certainly not remote for the people who live in them. On the question of where webcam links will be established, the document says:
	A procurement exercise will be needed to establish the arrangement.
	In large parts of rural Wales, those proposals will be hard to live with, and the only remedy suggested so far is that a procurement exercise should establish the arrangements. That is just not good enough, as hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree.
	The other day, I undertook a little exercise: I phoned traveline, an excellent service that gives travel times for bus and train journeys throughout Walesand England, for that matter. The service is available in Welsh and in English; HMRC should note that. It is run from Porthmadog, just down the road from the place from which the tax line is run. Traveline gave me some times, and I can inform the House that it takes four hours and 35 minutes to get to Wrexham from Pwllheli by bus, and to get back takes six hours. The journey time from Caernarfon to Wrexham is three hours and 25 minutes, and on the way back it is four hours. Those are the sort of travelling times that will be imposed on new applicants for passports, unless the webcam exercise is successful.
	As I say, at the moment, the scheme is just a gleam in someone's eye; a procurement exercise will have to establish the arrangement. I shall give a couple more interesting times. Even from Bangor, travel time to Wrexham is an hour and a half, and the journey back takes an hour and 50 minutes by train. People from the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) trying to get to the passport centre in Newport will have to travel by both bus and train, and the journey would take two hours and 10 minutes, and an hour and 50 minutes on the way back. The webcam links will be important, if and when they are established. Perhaps I am sceptical, if not cynical, in thinking that as the system is introduced those links will be quietly dropped. Scrutiny of a proposal that is little remarked on reveals a policy that is in danger of failing the people of rural Wales, and certainly fails to co-ordinate with the Assembly's policies.
	In the remaining minute or so, I should like to consider the development of policy in future. The Mental Health Bill will shortly be introduced in the Commons, and I hope that the Government will allow the Welsh Assembly the greatest latitude in the measure's application to Wales. Circumstances in Wales are different, and the health service, too, is different. The measure introduced by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive is markedly different from the measure proposed for Wales, and I think that we could do with the Milan principles that were included in the Scottish Bill. Finally, my Bilingual Juries (Wales) Bill is due to receive its Second Reading tomorrow, and I urge the House to give it proper consideration.

John Smith: I welcome the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly, in our St. David's day debate. St. David's day is a day of celebration for the Welsh people, and I shall focus on the announcement on 17 January that the new tri-service military academy, which has been mentioned, will be located in Wales, at St. Athan in my constituency. It is a matter of great celebration, not just for my constituents and south Wales, but for the whole of Wales, as it presents us with an unprecedented opportunity as the biggest ever public investment in any constituency in the UK.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred to the success of the Cardiff Bay investment, but the investment in the military training academy will be 32 times the size of the Cardiff Bay investment. It is worth 16 billion, so it is bigger than the total Olympic bid. As was pointed out to me earlier today, it is by far the biggest single investment since Edward I constructed his castles around the coast of our beautiful country. It offers the people of Wales a huge opportunity, not because of its size or value, but because of its nature. Numerous colleagues have referred to the challenge that we face in a global market of upskilling the Welsh work force and developing a knowledge-based economy. We could not wish for anything better than the investment, which will provide up to 12,000 military trainees with an enormous range of high-quality skills, including aeronautical engineering to mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer sciences, languages, photography and logistics. St. Athan will be a world centre of excellence for military training. Some people may think that that training is just for the military, but they could not be further from the truth. The success of our aerospace industry in south Wales has been predicated on the existence of the military aviation facility at RAF St. Athan for over 50 years.
	The spin-offs from the investment could be enormous, as long as we get our act together and get our act right. It presents us with considerable challenges. I have placed on record my thanks to colleagues in all parts of the House for their key contribution in ensuring that we secured the investment, and my thanks to the Welsh Assembly Government. Having worked so well together, it would be a big mistake for us to sit back now and say, Having won the 16 billion investment for Wales, let us just wait for all these wonderful jobs and opportunities to come to us. We should be doing the opposite. We have a three to five-year window of opportunity to get our act together to make sure that the people of my constituency, of south Wales and of the whole of Wales benefit from the investment.
	We should be setting up taskforces now in local business and industry, in our schools and colleges, and in our local authorities to ensure that we provide what is required to get the benefits of our success. Training programmes need to be thought about now to provide for the 5,500 direct jobs that will be created by the investment, not to mention the indirect jobs, of which there could be a far greater number if we get our act together now.
	We should be talking about developing a sourcing policy for the investmenta source Wales policy. By that I do not mean, as I have heard mentioned, that the company that comes in must buy Welsh goods, services, supplies, products and so on. But we should encourage the companies involved in the consortium to source first in Wales. The project will be like a new town created in the Vale of Glamorgan. If the products that the development requires, starting with day-to-day consumer goods and food, can be provided locally, of the right quality and at the right price, they should be purchased locally. That makes good business sense, if the consortium coming in knows what goods and services exist in the community.
	Over the next five years we can take practical steps to ensure that we benefit not just in the Vale of Glamorgan, but from Brecon to the coastline and from Monmouth to Pembrokeshire, if we work together as we worked together to secure the investment as team Wales. Now we must exploit all the benefits. One of the big challenges that we face is to provide the right infrastructure to access the site, especially by road. There will be a 600 acre site accommodating just the academy, with 10,000 to 15,000 personnel. The special forces support unit will run alongside that, and the aerospace park will be located within those 600 acres.
	The traffic generation from that development will be enormous, so we have to think about building or modernising the roads to facilitate the development and make sure that we get the most from it. We had a setback in February. The Welsh Assembly Government's plans to retrunk the A48 and the A4226 were lost at public inquiry. The inspector came out against the upgrading of the roads, which was an integral part of the proposal to secure the investment. We know that the roads in the immediate vicinity, 20 km from the M4, are not very good. I was very surprised to be told that an economic spokespersonor whatever he calls himselfin the Welsh Assembly stated on his blog last week that this was a sweet victory, yet we lost the opportunity to upgrade that access road. I found that hard to believe.

Mark Tami: He is a Conservative.

John Smith: I understand that to be the case.
	We must get our policy on roads right and we must do it now. I was delighted to hear Andrew Davis, the Minister for Enterprise, Innovation and Networks in the Welsh Assembly Government announce immediately that he was going to put public transport grants into the A4226 to upgrade this unsuitable, narrow and very dangerous road from the Port road in Barry up to the A48. We were pleased that that money was allocated, but it will not be enough. Consultants have now been invited quickly to produce proposals on direct access to the M4 to facilitate access to the military academy within the five years that it will take to construct and move into it.
	My plea this afternoon is for the Welsh Assembly GovernmentI hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will do whatever they can in supportseriously to consider whether the main artery for the academy could be the original airport link road, running west to east through the south of my constituency, now that the re-trunking of the A48 and the trunking of the A4226 has been blocked and scuppered. We must look into providing realistic alternatives.
	As the MP for this constituency, I do not rule out any option. We must provide the best road infrastructure so that we get the benefit from this development. If we do not do that, we will not get the benefit. Worse still, if we do not do it, the benefits will go to people outside our areathe suppliers to the main developers involved in building this 600 acre super-military university, which will be the best there is for military personnel in this country. If we are to meet the timetable and find a cost-effective way of providing a dual carriageway link to the military academy, the only option, in my opinion, is to upgrade the existing Port road, the A4050, to Culverhouse Cross and through to junction 33not junction 34of the M4.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is not a great deal of time left for the debate, so unless hon. Members make their remarks brief, I am afraid that quite are few of them will be disappointed.

Roger Williams: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will certainly take your advice into account.
	It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). It has been a great triumph to bring this development to Wales and I share his ambition for the benefits to spread not just alongside the M4 corridor, but throughout Wales, particularly into the valleys and the tops and heads of the valleys, which have faced such difficulty in regenerating. I am thinking particularly of the top of the Neath valley in Pont Nedd Fechan and the top of the Swansea valley in Ystradgynlais in my constituency, which still suffer from the closure of the coal industry and have never really regained the economic vibrancy that they once had.
	Hon. Members have covered a number of issues and I do not wish to go back over them, but it seems to me that a theme running through the contributions is that while the Government trumpet localism, what is, in fact, happening is centralisation. As a result, we see local tax offices of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, along with local hospitals, threatened with closure. That certainly applies in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), as four local community hospitals are threatened with closure. Schools and post offices are also threatened and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), there is also a problem with passports. It seems that some wish to reduce costs, but that is at the risk of reducing services, which is particularly worrying for people living in rural and sparsely populated areas.
	Certain figures that we have received about community hospitals show that keeping them open to deal with patients is cheaper than providing the service at home. That needs to be looked at again, because if those hospitals close, the bed-blocking problems that arise in district general hospitals will be exacerbated.
	I should like very briefly to raise two more issues. First, following the Government's success yesterday in taking the Offender Management Bill through Report and Third Reading, I am worried about the provision of probation services in rural areas and in my constituency. I have no doubt that the Government will face stronger opposition in another place and I hope that some progress will be made. My message to the Minister in the short time that remains is that he should not set targets for contestability. I hope that he passes that message on to his fellow Ministers. They should not set targets for contestability that will be either unachievable in certain areas or achieved at the risk of bringing in providers who do not have the necessary knowledge and commitment to those areas.
	I notice that Turning Point, a large national organisation delivering support for offenders, has welcomed the Bill and said that we could always subcontract facilities to more local organisations. I really do not think that that is the best way forward, however. I visited Powys Drugs and Alcohol recently. It is providing a valuable service, and it has fears about its services being subject to competition, because it has put all its efforts into delivering the service. It finds that when its energies are dissipated by having to apply again and again for contracts, it only weakens the organisation and does not strengthen it or help it provide a better service. I hope that the Minister will take that message on board, and that when the Bill is considered in the other place, some of those issues can be corrected.
	The only other issue on which I would like to reflect was raised by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith): the fact that the Competition Commission is now consulting on the role of supermarkets both in providing retail services in local areas and in the supply chain. It is a tragedy that only 13 farmers have replied to the consultation. Some people ask whether the farmers are content with the situation. I can tell the House that they are not content; they are feeling hopeless and weak and doubt whether their contributions will be taken into consideration. I ask the Minister, either with the Assembly or his DEFRA colleagues, to get the message over to the farming community that it can contribute and make a difference, and that its contributions need not be of a technical or academic nature; farmers need simply to reflect the circumstances as they see them in their business, with a lack of returns and increasing costs. As I told farmers in my constituency when I urged them to contribute, It's your life and your family. Please get engaged.

Mark Tami: A few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to secure a Westminster Hall debate on the Deeside hub. I am sure that hon. Members think of nothing else but the Deeside hub, but I can tell them that it is an economic region covering Flintshire, Wrexham, Chester, Wirral, Ellesmere Port and Neston.

Chris Ruane: Denbighshire?

Mark Tami: Unfortunately, it does not cover Denbighshire, but it is a region that has seen economic growth outstripping even that of south-east England over the past 10 years. Most experts and analysts expect to see that growth continue into the future, but we cannot be complacent and think that that will somehow carry on if we do not invest in our future by investing in industry and business, as well as the work force, including our potential work force. We need to heed the lessons of the past. Under the Tory Administration, we saw our major employers in north-east Wales decimated, our mining industry wiped out, our textile industry suffering the same fate and our steel industry, once the powerhouse of the region, suffering more than 8,000 job losses, which is still the record for the largest number of job losses in the UK at a single plant on a single day. I am afraid that that is the Tory record.
	Those were not only years of disastrous Tory Government but years of underinvestment in which we failed to understand or grasp the challenge or the threat of overseas competition. We failed to train and equip our young people with the skills that they needed to be part of a modern and dynamic economy. In areas of high unemployment such as mine, we embedded an attitude that I would describe as poverty of aspiration or ambition. That was particularly true of the young.
	Much has changed since those dark days of the 1980s. Earlier this week, I was pleased to attend the launch by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Andrew Davies from the Assembly of the new Toyota Arius in Derby and the joint announcement of further expansion and investment in the Toyota engine plant on Deeside, creating more than 100 new jobs and helping to secure the future of the plant.
	That investment has come thanks to a combination of factors: an efficient engine plant that has experienced dramatically rising productivity over recent years; a successful and growing UK economy where companies know that they can invest with confidence and certainty; and, importantly, support provided by the Welsh Assembly Government. That is joined-up government or, more to the point, joined-up Labour governmenta Labour-led Assembly working with a Labour Government here to delivery growth and, importantly, jobs in north Wales.
	Yesterday, Airbus announced the Power 8 restructuring programme, which has major implications for more than 7,000 workers employed at Broughton and more than 6,000 workers at Filton, near Bristol. I do not downplay the job losses announced, which represent a reversal, after many years of growth, since the dreadful events of 9/11, which affected the entire world's airline production business. I am confident, however, that those job losses can be achieved, through discussions with the trade unions, by voluntary means. I will certainly get involved in seeing how we can minimise the impact.
	On the positive side, and in sharp contrast to some of the reports that we have seen in national newspapers, the UK remains the centre of excellence for wing and propulsion systems. Broughton has been recognised as a core site within the Airbus business. There will be substantial investment in Broughton to do with the A350 programme. At Filton, the development of a composite design and manufacturing facility means that the UK will retain an involvement in design, manufacturing and assembly for the next generation of wings. I do not underestimate the challenge that we face from Airbus partners in Germany and Spain for such work, but we will be in a position to fight our corner. The important aircraft coming up after the A350 will be the replacement for the A320, which is the workhorse of aircraft fleets around the world.
	I am sure that I can rely on support from this Government to ensure that we secure our share of that work, which will be vital for the future. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to press colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to continue to invest in composite technology to secure the future of all our UK plants. I place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for his work and assistance over recent weeks and months. I am sure that, thanks to his help, we have money to secure a more beneficial outcome than we may have seen and that many in the press thought we were likely to see.
	When we hit difficulties, we sometimes lose sight of the great progress that we have made. The West factory at Broughton is the largest factory built in the UK over recent years, costing more than 350 million to build and equip. Overall, we have seen more than 2 billion-worth of capital investment over the past nine years. Although Airbus has hit difficulties with the A380 and the redesign of the A350, and there have been problems with the dollar exchange rate, 2006 was a record year for deliveries of aircraft. We should not lose sight of that.
	Where we have had success, we must maintain it, but also look to build on it and encourage others to site in our areas. Thanks to Airbus, we have a cluster of aerospace companies around Broughtonlocal suppliers including Magellan, Tritech, RD Precision, Metal Improvement Company and Electroimpact. As a result, more than 6 million a week overall is spent in the local economy. I am delighted that, despite the current difficulties, the company is carrying on its recruitment of the next generation of apprentices. Currently, Airbus has over 450 apprentices and over 6,000 have gone through the system in the past three decadesas I said, if only the rest of industry could follow that example. It has a good working relationship with Deeside college, North East Wales Institute and Yale college. Again, that could be used as a model.
	I have mentioned that over 2,500 young people attended an event this week looking to become apprentices at Broughton. That shows the confidence that is there. It has been a difficult period for Airbus, but I am sure that we can secure the future.
	I wanted to talk about many other issues today, including the steel industry and the need for more affordable housing, but unfortunately they will have to wait for another day, as I am aware that many other colleagues wish to speak.

Dai Davies: Following on from the Member for Shottonthe hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami)I will mention a few things that we missed out this afternoon. The communities first programme, which is a creation of the Welsh Assembly through objective 1 funding, is a huge opportunity. We need to look at the creation and the extension of social enterprises. There is a huge opportunity for employment. We must push that as much as we can.
	We have heard in the press, and we have all, I guess, had letters sent to us, about the worry that the Olympics may take away some lottery funding from our communities. Obviously, there is concern about community projects that receive lottery funding, which could be threatened. The big one for me is tourism, which is an opportunity for the valley communities that we do not take advantage of. From the Rhondda valley through Caerphilly and Merthyr to what is probably the jewel in the crown, the big pit in Blaenavon in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), there is a massive opportunity. We have an industrial and medical history that is second to none. We have heard today about our links to America and to Italy through the ice cream factories. That is the case in my constituency, too, and we can attract those people to bring money into our localities. That is something that we must look at with some urgency.
	In tackling climate change, we should look at the possibility of power generation not just from the River Severn, but from many other rivers throughout Wales. Another issue is industrial estates. We have a number, especially in constituencies such as mine, that are right up on the top of the mountain. Wind generators would be another major way of supplying those estates, away from the national grid as such. That is something that we can exploit in the best possible terms.

Hywel Francis: I speak in this important Welsh day debate from the perspective of being the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I speak too as a Labour Member representing a constituency that is benefiting from rising investment, record sustained growth and strong prospects for 2007.
	My constituency of Aberavon, in common with the rest of Wales, is facing a growing global challenge, and I wish to give some attention to that. When I became Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I expressed the view that our task was to champion the cause of the people of Wales in Parliament and to hold to account not only the Secretary of State for Wales but all other major spending Departments in Wales. It was also my view that we should be as collectivist, if that is the right word, as possible and achieve as much consensus as possible. I thank all members of the Committee for achieving thatmost of the time, at least.
	One of the virtues of a parliamentary Select Committee is that it can respond quickly to the changing circumstances in Wales and have short inquiries. Our most effective short inquiry was perhaps the one on the future of the St. Athan site and the Ministry of Defence's new UK-wide training academy. The success of Metrix will lead, as we have heard, to the creation of around 5,000 jobs at St. Athan and contribute about 58 million to the local economy. I congratulate all Members of all political parties on the contribution that they made in that successful campaign, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith).
	The Welsh Affairs Committee's main inquiry last year was on energy, and it was one of the most relevant inquiries that we have ever held. We took evidence on the cost, efficiency and sustainability of existing energy sources in Wales, including nuclear power, wind, gas, oil and coal, and we had additional evidence later on earlier this year on coal. We also looked into tidal, wave, solar, hydroelectric, biomass and geothermal sources. Our recommendations will be taken very seriously during the preparation of the White Paper.
	In November, we announced that we were beginning another major inquiry, on globalisation and its impact on Wales. We have begun our inquiry by looking at employment and we have noticed a major issue, skills. I suspect that the skills challenge will be one of the biggest issues to emerge, particularly the leading role of higher education institutions in Wales, and I hope that we will get some evidence from them in due course. The Labour manifesto for the Assembly, Building a Better Wales, calls for
	quality jobs in a small, clever country,
	and that is an important theme.
	Education is a devolved matter, but I am pleased to see that Welsh higher education institutions have been showcasing their research, teaching and community links here at Westminster at a number of important events. The Committee has been proactive in monitoring the progress of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and, most recently, has been looking at the functioning of the Orders in Council. I look forward, as do all other members of the Committee to working in partnership with our Assembly colleagues on scrutinising them.
	I now turn to the steel industry, which is very important in my constituency and other parts of Wales. This will be part of our globalisation inquiry and has been brought into sharp focus because of the takeover of Corus by the Indian firm, Tata. I am struck by the fascinating connections, some personal, between India and Wales. My late father was a keen supporter of the India League, which campaigned for independence with the Congress party. Indeed, Krishna Menon, the first Foreign Secretary in India after independence, spoke in my home village during the second world war. Of course we are well aware of the close friendship over many decades between Aneurin Bevan and Prime Minister Nehru.
	I truly believe that our two countries have similar and common values. History and culture are important guides to us, but we must also recognise that we are living in new, changed and challenging times. We face globalisation in steel as in many other sectors where the pace of change is accelerating.
	The steel unions want Corusor should I say Tatato spend a further 300 million on bringing facilities at Port Talbot, Llanwern and Scunthorpe to a level of production and quality to beat most of the competition from the EU. I share that aspiration, and I was greatly encouraged by the Minister for Trade, who made a positive contribution about the future of the steel industry when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee recently.
	The Government's approach to this strategically important industry needs to be constantly reviewed and re-evaluated and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on her leadership, as chair of the all-party steel group, in identifying climate change measures and public procurement as key issues that the Government must address.
	I shall end on an historical note. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the way in which he has emphasised the importance of the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery. He may not know that one of the finest histories of slave rebellions, The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James, a great writer of West Indian origin, was reputedly completed in 1938 in my right hon. Friend's constituency, in the Dulais valley. C. L. R. James was, of course, a close friend of that great humanitarian and honorary Welshman, Paul Robesonwho was another friend of Nehru. All three of them would have been fascinated by the new relationship that is now developing between Wales and India.

Wayne David: I suppose it is inevitable that in our debate on St. David's day we have heard numerous references to what Wales experienced during 18 years of Conservative Government. I know that the Conservatives sometimes do not like us to refer to that, and some of them find it quite funny, but that episode in Wales cast a dark cloud over the country, and only now are we beginning to see some genuine light at the end of the tunnel.
	In the 1990s, I edited a pamphlet on what policies a Labour Government might introduce. One of the contributors to it was a young academic by the name of Kevin Morgan, who is now Professor Morgan of Cardiff university. He strongly argued that Wales needed a more diversified economy and much more Government-led investment in the defence sector. He pointed to the fact that there was massive Government-led investment in the south of England and the south-west but very little in Wales, and he was absolutely right.
	I am pleased to be able to say that that is now being addressed. Two investments stand out as undoubtedly significant. The first has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig): the General Dynamics UK Ltd investment in Oakdale and Newbridge, creating 700 well-paid, quality jobs, linked to the contract for the Bowman communications system for the Ministry of Defence. There is a huge investmentworth 2.4 billionin the depressed valleys of south Wales. That investment is the thin end of a wedge. It has shown what is possible; it has shown that there is innate vitality in the valleys of south Wales, which is just waiting to be harnessed and tapped. The Bowman communications system has proved to be successful in action, and it highlights what can happen when we make the transition from analogue to digital.
	Building on that success, the other great recent triumph has been the award of the defence training academy contract to St. Athan, to which Members have referred. There will be a huge investment of 16 billion. Wales celebrated the fact that we received objective 1 status a few years ago, which was worth 1.3 billion, but the figure for St. Athan is 16 billion, which shows how important the contract won by the Metrix consortium is for the economy of the whole of south Walesindeed for the whole of Wales, as has been said.
	There is one question that I particularly want to ask today: how did that investment come about? Did it come about because of good luck or an act of God, or because the Labour Government saw that the Welsh Assembly elections were coming up? No. That investment was won by St. Athan because it was the best place to invest, and it is the best place to invest because a unique partnership has been established between central Government in London and a Welsh Assembly Government. The Welsh Assembly Government did an enormous amount of preparatory work to ensure that the infrastructure was in place so that Metrix could put forward the best possible bid. That wasobjectivelyrecognised by the MOD, and the contract went to the right place.
	It is interesting that a number of people have claimed credit for the contract going to St. Athan. A constituent of mine wrote to  The Western Mail; his name is Mr. Nutt, and he is a Plaid Cymru member. He said that it was a fantastic contracta wonderful contractand that he and his friends in Plaid Cymru were very pleased to have played a part in winning it. That is a joke. I wrote back to  The Western Mail, saying that such was not the case, and that the partnership that was successful was a Labour partnership involving Labour Assembly Members, Labour MPs, a Labour Government in Cardiff and a Labour Government in Westminster. That is what won the bid. What was the response from Plaid Cymru in the pages of  The Western Mail? Not one single letter. That is surprising, is it not? Most days,  The Western Mail is full of letters from Plaid Cymru candidates and members putting their case, but on this issue they were absolutely silent.

Hywel Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) was kind enough to acknowledge, rightly, the contribution of all parties in this place, rather than making the self-demeaning case that the hon. Gentleman is making.

Wayne David: I am just being objective and honest and telling the truth according to what I heard and saw with my own eyes, which is what we all know to be the reality.
	What is more, at a crucial time when bids were being made, the president of Plaid Cymru not only failed to support the bid, but undermined it. On 29 November last year in a BBC Wales radio interview, Dafydd Iwan said categorically that he was against a military presence in Wales. If that is not undermining the defence training rationalisation programme bid, what is? That speaks volumes. It tells us exactly where Plaid Cymru really stands on the defence of this country and defence investment in Wales.
	At the election on 3 May, the people of Wales will have the facts before them. They will know that the Labour party in government in Cardiff and in London is transforming the Welsh economy. They will realise that although the work has begun, there is much to do, and I believe that they will look at our record and come to an objective decision about what is the best way forward. I have no doubt that when the people of Wales have a clear choice between a rag-tag coalition made up of odds and sods of the Opposition parties, or a Labour Administration with coherent policies and a vision for the future, they will vote Labour.

Albert Owen: I was going to speak for the limit of 12 minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I know that you will not let me, so I will try to condense my remarks into two minutes.  [Interruption.] Well, if the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman had taken a little less time, we all could have got in. However, I am not going to argue with the Liberal Democrats, because I have some important constituency issues to discuss.
	Last week I joined Assembly Minister Andrew Davies on a visit to the new Maes Awyr Mnto Anglesey airportto announce the intended operator of the north-south link between Cardiff and Anglesey. It was a very important step in a long political campaign that I have been involved in, working closely with the Westminster and Assembly Governments. The link will provide great opportunities for the people of north-west Wales and Anglesey in particular. A lot of objective 1 and local authority investment has gone into the project, and I hope that it will bring the benefits to the area that we all feel we deserve.
	RAF Valley is very important to Ynys Mn not just in military termsI will discuss that issue briefly in a momentbut for search and rescue. Next year, the United Kingdom search and rescue headquarters will be relocated there. That is to the credit of No. 22 Squadron, which does an excellent search and rescue job. Scheduled flights will run from Ynys Mn and the search and rescue headquarters will be there. Following this week's announcement by the Ministry of Defence, RAF Valley will also have the contract to service the Hawk T1the next generation of the fast jetsubject to the contract being completed between Babcock, the civil maintenance operators at the airfield, and BAE Systems. That is good news for Anglesey. RAF Valley is central to the island's and the region's economy.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) that Plaid Cymru undermines military and armed forces investment in Wales. Indeed, it is not just a junior member of its team but its president who wants to remove all air bases and military establishments from Wales. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price)he is not in his place, but if he were I would still raise this issuedid not have the courtesy to tell me that he wanted to curtail low flying in Wales. Doing so would also curtail jobs at RAF Valley. Of course, the Assembly Member and leader of Plaid Cymru was silent on this issue. In his own constituency, a spokesman said that they wanted to reduce the amount of low flying in the area, which would do away with the jobs. Plaid Cymru cannot have it both ways. Military and defence expenditure in Wales is the fault line in Plaid Cymru, and we are right to expose that before the Assembly elections so that people know that jobs will be secure with a Labour team here in Westminster and a Labour team in the Assembly.

David Jones: This has been a spirited and interesting debate. It is especially gratifying for hon. Members on both sides of the House that it is actually taking place on St. David's day. It is important that we should have this annual debate because it gives Members from Wales an opportunity to air issues of interest to the Principality.
	The Secretary of State opened the debate in his customary Tory-bashing vein, which sat rather ill with the sanctity of the day and what we know is his true persona as a home-loving Aga owner. That theme was developed by other Labour Members. One might even have thought that an election were approaching. We know, of course, that the Secretary of State's remarks were aimed over the heads of his audience in the Chamber today at the members of the parliamentary Labour party. We also know, from the Guido Fawkes website, that he has already attracted a great deal of support. I am sure that the inadvertent publication of his list of supporters will not damage his chances.
	Several themes developed during the debate and were aired by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke after the two Front Benchers, and his contribution was customarily statesmanlike and thoughtful. He touched on the important issue of security and policing, a theme of great importance in Wales and other parts of the UK recently. I was glad to see that at last the immigration and nationality directorate presence has been restored to Holyhead. Many hon. Members were concerned that for a long time there had been no immigration officers stationed permanently at Holyhead.

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Jones: I cannot take any interventions because we have very little time left.
	A serious concern arose last week, when illegal immigrants were discovered in north Wales and the police were told by the IND to give them a map and send them to Liverpool. There is a significant concern about security in Wales and it was right for the right hon. Gentleman to raise that issue.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) raised many issues in his contribution and many of his themes were taken up by other Members. However, he alone touched to any great extent on the issue of agriculture. We must never forget the importance of the rural way of life to Wales. Agriculture is a vastly important industry and many families have depended on it for their livelihoods for generations. However, there is more to the issue than that. The agricultural communities are frequently also the Welsh-speaking communities and, of course, agriculture has had some very tough times recently. We have had the fiasco of the foot and mouth episode and problems with bovine tuberculosis. Recently, there has been the reduction in support given by the Assembly to farmers in the less favoured areas. Tir Mynydd is being phased out and, in many cases it is all that keeps farmers in those areas going.
	As we heard from the hon. Gentleman, dairy farmers in Wales are going out of business at the rate of three a week. That is simply because they can sell their milk only for a price several pence lower per litre than the cost of production. Every time a farmer in Wales goes out of business, the Welsh community is weakened and the Welsh language is damaged. The Assembly could do more to concentrate on agriculture and support the agricultural community.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) made an excellent speech, and a number of his themes were taken up by other hon. Members. He was worried about the erosion of public services and the threat to HMRC offices in Wales. The latter point was taken up by the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. Caton), for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).
	Various hon. Members noted that the tendency for increasing centralisation can only be damaging for Wales, where the population is thin and travelling long distances takes so much time. The hon. Member for Caernarfon said that the HMRC office at Porthmadog in his constituency had a face-to-face service in Welsh, and the importance of such a service to the community in that part of the country cannot be underestimated. As many hon. Members noted, it is not good enough to centralise HMRC offices in the large cities. The people of Wales pay their taxesgoodness knows, they pay more than ever under this Governmentand they are entitled to a face-to-face service at HMRC offices.
	The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a speech that departed from the norm. She touched, inter alia, on homelessness, which she rightly called a blight on Wales and the whole UK. Anyone who walks from Parliament up Victoria street after dark will be appalled at the numbers of people who sleep outside Government offices because they have nowhere else to go. The right hon. Lady was right to raise the question of homelessness in the context of a Welsh debate, and I commend her for it.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) spoke about justice and the provision of prisons. He was right to say that we need more prisons in Wales, especially in the north. Solicitors and probation officers from my part of the country sometimes have to travel immensely long distancestheir journeys can take a whole daywhen they see clients in custody at Altcourse. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr also spoke about substance misuse. He rightly said that it should be treated for what it isa serious illness. One of my concerns as a north Wales Member has to do with the reduction in the availability of residential rehabilitation places. The Welsh Assembly's shocking decision to fund an automated needle exchange machineit was to have been situated in a dark alley in my constituencycaused an enormous outcry. The decision was dismissed, but there is no doubt that we need more rehabilitation facilities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) made a characteristically forthright speech, in which he spoke about the Union and the need for caution in the extension of the devolution process. Those are important questions and, given that an election is approaching, I cannot resist the opportunity to mention that there is one party in this House that would cause Wales to be torn out of the Union and become an irrelevant state in an ever more powerful EU. We can well do without that, and it will be rejected by the people of Wales on 3 May.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth was also right to highlight the issue of his constituent Mr. Vince Davies, the cancer patient unable to get the treatment that he needs. Again, hon. Members of all parties will have experienced similar problems. We all have constituents who find that they are having to wait longer and longer for treatment, especially if that treatment has to take place on the other side of the border. Waiting lists for treatment at centres of excellence such as the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt hospital in Gobowen are much longer for patients from Wales than from England. My constituents and, I have no doubt, those of other hon. Members make the reasonable point that they pay their taxes and national insurance contributions at precisely the same rate as English patients, so why should they be expected to put up with a second-class service? I find it extraordinary that when elective surgery is taking longer and longer for patients from Wales, and when the funds for such treatments are subject to such exigencies, the Welsh Assembly Government decide that it is sensible to scrap prescription charges for everyone whether or not they can pay for it. One might think there was an election approaching.
	Wales is a country that has unlimited potential. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), the Chairman of the Select Committeewithout wishing to be accused of sycophancy, I commend him on his chairmanship; he is an excellent chairmanproperly touched on the problems that Wales faces. They were also touched on by other hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). We in Wales live in an increasingly globalised society. The threats and challenges to Wales come not just from down the road, down the valley, or the next town, but from a different continent. The evidence given to the Select Committee in the valuable globalisation inquiry pointed to the fact that, sadly, the Welsh education system was simply not keeping up with the challenge.
	Last week we heard evidence from witnesses from Admiral Insurance, who pointed out the difficulty in obtaining graduate trainees who were able to write simple business letters. By contrast, in India all Admiral's basic call centre staff who answer the telephone are graduates. As one hon. Member said earlier, the countries in the far east are turning out graduates at an enormous rate. Wales simply has to rise to that challenge.
	We have a good future ahead of us as a country. We can do well. We can avoid the sniping that turns the public off and look towards Wales as a product that we can market, but we will be able to do that only if we have something good to sell. The key to that is education. That is something that everyone in the Chamber agrees on. If we pursue education, training and skills, we will all have a nation we can be proud to call our Wales.

Nick Ainger: It has been a genuinely wide-ranging debate. I shall try in the time that I have to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) to intervene to make a short contribution. Unfortunately, she was the only. Member who was not called today. I was prepared to wind up in 10 minutes, but the Opposition wanted a little longer.
	Wales has shared fully in the unprecedented rise in prosperity that the whole of the United Kingdom has enjoyed thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's superb management of the economy, to which many hon. Members have referred. Wales has benefited from the massive investment in public services under Labour, making up for years of under-investment by the Tories. After 10 years of massive progress under Labour, Wales faces important challenges and opportunities. The new Government of Wales Act 2006 will, from May, provide the Assembly with significant new powers to tackle the challenges ahead such as the rapid changes in the world economy, with the breakneck economic growth of countries such as China and India, and the looming threat of climate change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), my right hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. David), for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) and for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) all raised issues relating to the economy, the importance of skills and education and the threats and opportunities that are posed by globalisation.
	In the past 10 years, 133,000 jobs have been created in Wales and unemployment has fallen by 37,000. There have been huge falls in unemployment in constituencies in the valleys and in the more remote parts of west and north Wales. In my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, unemployment has fallen by more than 70 per cent. over the past nine years. In the dark days when the Conservative Government were in power such figures would have been incredible. If anyone had said there would be statistical full employment in many parts of Wales in 10 years' time, no one would have believed them.
	How has that been achieved? For the past eight years there has been partnership between a Labour-run Assembly Government and a Labour UK Government, with unprecedented investment in Wales by the private and public sectors. The private sector has invested in Airbus, Toyota and General Dynamics, and has made massive investment across Wales because it believes that the Welsh economy and work force will ensure that companies are profitable.

Nia Griffith: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Camford on the announcement that it has secured the future of its Llanelli factory? Owing to hard work by the unions, my friend Catherine Thomas, AM for Llanelli, and the Assembly Government Minister for Enterprise, Innovation and Networks, Camford now has a secure base for the future of its car factory in Llanelli.

Nick Ainger: Absolutely. From the briefings that my hon. Friend has given me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I know how hard she has been working to ensure the continuation of that important manufacturing plant in Llanelli.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn stressed the absolute importance of our education system, and of skills not only for our existing work force, but for the young people who will be entering the work force. I was particularly pleased that in the building for a better Wales documents, the Labour party in Wales announced that it intends to set up a skills academy, which will serve young people going through our education system as well as giving hundreds of thousands of people who are already in work the opportunity to upskill, so that we can compete in the global market.
	Like many other colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan emphasised the vital importance, and the huge opportunities for his constituency and constituencies throughout Wales of the 16 billion investment in St. Athan. That project will create jobs and be a university for skills. The private sector will be involved, but as my hon. Friend rightly said, infrastructure support will also be needed and I shall be discussing that issue with Andrew Davies shortly.
	The other main issue raised by Members on both sides of the House related to the proposed changes in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire, my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) and for Gower and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) all raised that important issueI may have missed someone. I can tell the House that I met the Paymaster General on 15 January to discuss the concerns that have been expressed by Members from all parts of the House about the effect that there would be on jobs and about the importance of having access to tax officers throughout Wales, particularly in our more peripheral areas.
	I also met the Minister with responsibility for the civil service last week to discuss not only those matters, but the Lyons review and the transfer of civil service jobs from, in the main, the south-east of England to Wales. I have arranged a meeting in March between the Paymaster General, myself and the First Minister to discuss the issue again, because I think that there is a real opportunity for joined-up government to address some of the concerns that many Members have expressed. Members will be aware that the National Assembly is also moving its civil servants out of the Cardiff area to more peripheral parts of Wales, and we may be able to link up with that. This is a work in progress. I emphasise again to the House that no decisions have been made on any particular office and that there is a genuine consultation process under way. I hope that colleagues throughout the House will make their contributions.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Ainger: I am afraid not.  [ Interruption. ] No, I am not going to give way. I have been very clear.
	A number of colleagues raised the issue of prisons and policing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen made an excellent contribution, as usual. He and other colleagues raised the issue of the location of prisons, both in north and south Wales. I know that he has already had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who is responsible for prisons, about his concerns about the proposal, which is at an early stage at this point. I will certainly take up that point, but I think that it is agreed across the House that we need more prison capacity in Wales. Far too many people who are convicted in Wales are serving their sentences in England. That is particularly the case in north Wales. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has seen the prisons Minister, or is about to see him. All that I can do is repeat what was said to the Welsh Affairs Committee: if a suitable site is available, it will be given serious consideration. The same is true in south Wales. I recognise the point that was made by my right hon. Friend. Perhaps other sites should now be promoted, particularly to assist in the regeneration of the few pockets where there are still unacceptably high levels of unemployment compared with the rest of Wales.
	We also had contributions from a number of colleagues on renewable energy. A draft climate change Bill will be published in weeks, rather than months. In relation to the Severn barrage, the Sustainable Development Commission has appointed consultants to examine the feasibility of the matter and they will report back.
	On farming, the price of milk and the power of supermarkets, the Competition Commission has already published its emerging thinking on its report and the final report is expected in November 2007. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, I urge anybodyindividual Members or farmers themselvesto make a contribution.
	Some colleagues also raised the issue of health. All that I can say to the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire is that an extra 30 million is going into dentistry in this financial year and it will be committed in the next financial year as well.
	As today's debate has shown, we have a choice. We can continue going in the right direction as we have in the past 10 years, with record jobs and investment in schools and hospitals and a booming Welsh economy, or we can return to the dark days of the '80s and '90s, with soaring unemployment, overcrowded classrooms, long waits for essential operations and the boom and bust of the economics of the Tories. We know that there was very little boom in Wales, but an awful lot of bust.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS (SCHOOLS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Huw Irranca-Davies.]

Michael Howard: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents and of much wider and more general significance.
	On 13 September last year, a serious fire broke out at Lympne primary school in my constituency. Most school fires occur when schools are closed, but this time the fire began at the beginning of the school day. In a very short time the school's buildings were gutted by the fire. The chief fire officer for Kent told me that
	it was mainly due to the prompt actions of staff and pupils that casualties were avoided.
	Two hundred and thirty children and their teachers were evacuated to safety. It could so easily, and so tragically, have been different.
	The chief fire officer went on to tell me that
	the incident...gave a graphic illustration of how quickly fire can take hold, and despite the best efforts of the Fire Service the school was destroyed. Clearly this had a devastating impact on the staff and on pupils and although there was no loss of life or serious injury, the long term effect has been considerable. As a consequence over 200 children had their lives disrupted and alternative education facilities had to be found.
	I live in the village of Lympne and when I visited the school I was shocked by the scale of the destruction. The school hall, where children and staff were attending morning assembly at the time the fire broke out, had totally collapsed. We owe a great debt to the professionalism and prompt actions of staff and the alertness of the child who first spotted the signs of fire. But we cannot presume that that will happen every time. According to the chief fire officer:
	The severity of the fire and the damage already caused prevented the firefighters from even entering the building.
	What if, for all the efforts of the school's staff, a child had been left in the building? That child might very well not have been rescued. He or she might not have survived.
	Yet there is one simple step that could be taken which could make a huge difference when fires occur in schools. As the chief fire officer said:
	If the school had been fitted with a properly designed and installed sprinkler system the fire may have been controlled if not extinguished in its early stages thus preventing the total loss of the school,
	and, I would add, making it much easier to save lives.
	I am glad to say that Kent county council has said that the replacement for the school buildings will incorporate a sprinkler system. The county council and Kent fire service are also in discussions with the aim of fitting sprinklers in all new and refurbished schools in the county in future, but I regret to say that such a forward-thinking approach is not the norm among our local education authorities.
	Even though lives are potentially at stake, even though more than 90,000 pupils a year have their education disrupted by school fires as a result of damage to classrooms and loss of coursework, school work, teaching notes and aids, even though 20 schools a week are affected by arson attacks, even though school fires last year cost us 74 million7 million up on the previous year and 25 million up on 11 years agoof the United Kingdom's 30,000 schools, only around 250 have sprinkler systems.
	The financial cost of school fires is enormous. As I said, school fires cost Britain, in which there are 30,000 schools, 74 million last year, but in the United States, where there are about 150,000 schools, the cost was just 50 million. Why do school fires in the United States cost seven and a half times less, school for school, than in Britain? The answer is clear: following a series of major fires in the late 1950s, the United States introduced building codes to ensure the installation of sprinklers in almost all schools. The difference between the risk faced by schools with sprinklers and the risk faced by schools without them is striking: last year, not one United Kingdom school with a sprinkler system suffered a major fire.
	Sprinklers are 99 per cent. effective in controlling fires, normally with fewer than five sprinkler heads operating. That dramatically reduces the severity of fire damage to the school, and water damage is minimised because the fire is contained in the part of the school where it started. Crucially, the school can be back in use on the same day, rather than two years later, after it has been rebuilt, as is likely to be the case in Lympne.
	The Government are keen to tell us about the money that they have spent on school buildings. They have, for example, promised to refurbish or rebuild at least half of all primary schools over 15 years, but the refurbishments that have taken place have been completed under the existing building guidance and generally have not incorporated sprinklers. It has been argued that the cost of installing sprinklers is too high. Although the installation of sprinklers may well make up between 1 and 2 per cent. of total build cost, that can be offset. Sprinklers give greater design freedom to architects, who can use them to reduce other costs, and there is the potential for a major saving in insurance premiums, too. Schools with sprinklers can benefit from a three-quarters reduction in their insurance premiums, recouping any additional cost over time, and eventually actually saving money.
	Of course, in the event of a fire, the costs for a school without sprinklers is astronomical, quite apart from the potential loss of life. The insurance premiums will have been very high to start with, and the cost of rebuilding an entire school or a large part of it, instead of refurbishing perhaps a solitary classroom, is obviously very high. Also, there is a major expense to be met if children are to be educated at a different site for two years while work takes place. That is not only financially costly, but extremely disruptive to children's education. Teaching aids, coursework and class work are often destroyed. However dedicated children's teachers are, the very fact of being taught in temporary accommodation will inevitably severely disrupt their education.

John Penrose: rose

Michael Howard: I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend, to whom I pay tribute for his excellent early-day motion on the subject that we are discussing.

John Penrose: My right hon. and learned Friend is perhaps aware that the early-day motion has been signed by nearly 100 colleagues of all parties. Does he agree that the Government's current refurbishment and new build plan, which, it has been announced, will continue for many years, presents an opportunity to start making sprinkler systems a natural and inherent part of all new build and all refurbishment? That chance should be taken, because we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get sprinklers into a large proportion of our schools as part of normal refurbishment operations.

Michael Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why this debate is so timely. Not surprisingly, given what I have said, there is wide-ranging consensus in favour of installing sprinklers in our schools, and last year the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government strongly recommended it. I understand that every chief fire officer in the country has written to the Minister for Schools to press him to introduce sprinklers throughout our schools. The insurance industry is lobbying hard for that change, too. Thus far, the Department for Education and Skills has maintained that decisions to fit sprinklers are best made locally, by local education authorities, but as I said, local education authorities are, to a great extent, failing to make those decisions.
	I know that the Department intends to include further information on sprinklers in its new guide, building bulletin 100, Designing and Managing Against the Risk of Fire in Schools. There has not been any indication from Ministers that they intend to make the installation of sprinklers a requirement, and the Government have repeatedly delayed publication of the guide. I understand that the latest date for publication is April. I understand, too, that on Monday, the Minister for Schools told the all-party fire safety parliamentary group seminar that the Department will issue a risk assessment tool and supporting documentation to ensure that, of new build and substantially refurbished schools,
	all but a few low risk schools will be fitted with sprinkler systems.
	Will he repeat publicly to the House the private assurances that he gave on Monday? Are those involved in the design of schools required to use the risk assessment tool or not? Will it be compulsory, or is it just an optional ready reckoner that developers are free to ignore? How will the tool categorise a school as low risk? Will the judgment be based purely on the level of probability that it will be the subject of an arson attack? If that is the case, schools such as Lympne in my constituency are likely not to be judged high risk. A rural location may reduce the risk of arson, but it does nothing to reduce the risk of an electrical fault, which was what caused the fire at Lympne school.
	Will the risk assessment tool apply to all new builds, to major refurbishments, or to both? If the risk assessment states that a school should have sprinklers installed, will installation be required, or just recommended? Would it not be much simpler to make the installation of sprinklers mandatory for new build and substantial refurbishments? Today, with so few sprinklers installed in schools, the lives and education of our children are at risk. By not introducing sprinklers in new and refurbished schools, and by not phasing them in throughout the school infrastructure, we are living on our luck. It is simply not good enough to hope that, in the event of a school fire, drills will be implemented smoothly and everything will go without a hitch. It is simply not good enough to leave our children's lives to chance. I urge the Government to make mandatory the installation of sprinklers in new and refurbished schools, and to phase in their introduction throughout the rest of the nation's school buildings. I hope that the Minister will have encouraging and reassuring news to report this evening.

Jim Knight: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on securing a debate that he rightly described as timely.
	I have long been interested in the use of fire sprinklers to help overcome the devastating impact that fire can have on schools and elsewhere. I am a former patron of the national fire sprinklers network, and I served as a non-executive director of the Fire Protection Association until I joined the Government. I am therefore familiar with the problem and the scope of fire sprinklers to offer a solution to fire safety. I am familiar with the statistics cited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I recall, there have not been any deaths in fires in buildings where a properly installed fire sprinkler system is in place. I am well aware of some of the myths, too. The Hollywood image of one sprinkler setting all the sprinklers off is not a reality, because sprinklers depend on heat bursting their glass filament sprinkler by sprinkler. I am familiar, too, with the evidence of the effectiveness of active measures in Scottsdale, Arizona and Vancouver, where sprinklers have been extensively installed.
	I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who shares my concern about the issue. I am very sorry to hear of the fire that affected Lympne Church of England primary school in his constituency last year. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the firefighters who fought the blaze and to the head, governors, staff, parents and pupils, who not only had to deal with a traumatic experience at the time, but have had to cope with the upheaval to their education and their school community that has followed. I pay tribute to them for the ongoing work that they are doing as a result.
	Given how many hon. Members have seen the effect of school fires in their constituenciessmall bin fires occur fairly regularly in schools, but there was one in a primary school in my constituency a few years ago that caused serious damageit is no surprise that there has been widespread interest in the House, with over 100 signatories to the early-day motion calling for fire sprinklers in schools, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), whom I am pleased to see in his place.
	Earlier this week, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe mentioned, I was pleased to address the national fire sprinklers network and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to bring our new policy on fire sprinklers to the attention of the House. First, let me set out the scale of the problem.
	The number of school fires has decreased over recent years. Provisional figures for 2005 show that the number of deliberate fires in schools has approximately halved since 1996. I am aware that other fires, such as the one in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, are caused by other factors. Schools are generally very safe places, and so they should be. One is more than three times as likely to be injured in a supermarket fire than in a school fire, although we do not want any injuries from fires anywhere.
	Provisional figures for 2005 show that around one in 21 schools experienced a fire that year. The cost of those fires is not yet available, but in 2004, it was in the region of 52 million. It is estimated that between 55 and 65 per cent. of those fires are started deliberately. This causes immeasurable damage to the schools affected, as the community where the right hon. and learned Gentleman lives is discovering to its cost, with learning disrupted, facilities damaged, and coursework up in smoke.
	Despite the steady decline, there can clearly be no room for complacency. We must improve fire safety in schools, getting the balance right between active measures such as sprinklers and the passive measures with which we are more familiar, such as fire doors. That is why we have taken the view that all but the very low risk schools should have fire sprinklers, which have been proven to be an effective weapon against fires, including those started deliberately.
	However, we do not intend to make this a compulsory measure for all schools, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman anticipated. Although the vast majority of schools will find sprinklers a useful weapon against fire, there are a few, but only a very few, which are at low risk of fire. In those instances it would not be sensible in cost-benefit terms for schools to install sprinklers, and we do not want to force them down that route. Instead, we have to offer schools and local authorities clear and comprehensive advice to help them make the right decision on a delegated basis.
	Building bulletin 100, which was mentioned, will be published in early summer and will include extensive guidance to schools about the value of sprinklers, stressing their importance as a weapon against arson and clarifying our expectation that all but the few very low risk schools should adopt them. We have also developed new practical materials to help schools make the right decision.

Michael Howard: I hope the Minister is going on to tell us, and if not, I invite him to tell us, how the document defines low risk schools. Is it not the case that Lympne primary school, a relatively new school in a rural area, unlikely to be and indeed not subject to any arson attack, might have been categorised as low risk and therefore not, even under the new measures that the Government propose to introduce, the kind of school in which sprinklers would have been installed?

Jim Knight: I was going on to say that we would help schools and local authorities to make that assessment using the new risk assessment tool to which he referred. We would point it out in the guidance. Following the letter that I received from all the chief fire officers in the land, which urged me to develop the use of sprinklers in schools, I put together a working group that included representation from the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and from across the fire safety and insurance industry, as well as our own officials and the Local Government Association, in order properly to analyse the cost and risk associated with fire. It is on the basis of consensus from that group that we developed this risk assessment tool and the guidance on which we will consult.

John Penrose: It is reassuring to know that some heavyweight fire professionals have been involved in developing the risk tool, but could the Minister help further by providing a rough estimate of the number of low-risk schools that he expects to find in the total population of UK schools, which would help us to understand how few will not be eligible for sprinkler systems?

Jim Knight: I cannot provide an exact figure, though I can repeat the phrase that there will be very few. I am coming on to say that we will write to MPs who signed the early-day motion. In many ways it will be a repeat of what I am telling the House now, but we will send a copy of the risk assessment tool on a CD, so that hon. Members can use it for themselves if they choose to and see what risk assessment would apply to the schools in their own constituencies.
	That tool will help a school to establish whether it is at high, medium or low risk, to decide on the action that it needs to take and to establish whether a fire sprinkler system is necessary. Similarly, a cost-benefit analysis tool will help schools to decide whether a sprinkler represents good value. In private finance projects, where it is easier to account for the whole-life cost of a building, lower insurance premiums mean that the cost of fire sprinklers is recouped within 10 to 12 years.
	I launched these new materials earlier this week, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us, and will ensure that they are properly disseminated to local authorities, all MPs and chief fire officers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether I could go further towards forcing the use of the tool. What I would say on that is that we will refer in the guidance to the need to use the tool to measure riskand it would be a foolish authority that ignored it and failed to have proper regard to that guidance. I would also say that I am still interested in whether there should be a presumption in favour of the use of sprinklers. It would then be up to authorities and schools to demonstrate to the community why not. However, I need to discuss and develop that further with officials before I take a final decision.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be familiarhe referred to itwith the Government's unprecedented capital investment in school building. There has been as much school building in the past five years as in the previous 25 years. By 2020, we will have rebuilt or refurbished all secondary schools through Building Schools for the Future and half of all primary schools through the primary capital programme. That is why now is the right time to give fire sprinklers in schools a higher priority, as he said. Clearly, it is most sensible and cost-effective to install fire sprinklers as part of this building work rather than later on when the additional cost of retrofitting sprinklers can often be prohibitive.
	So the suite of guidance on building specifications for Building Schools for the Future will include a pamphlet on the specifications for fire sprinklers. We will consult industry on that pamphlet later on this spring, so that the document will be available in the summer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to some of the delays around publishing some of these documents, guidance and so forth. It is very much informed by the work that has been going on with the fire safety industry, chief fire officers, the LGA and my officials, to whom I am grateful, because we wanted to ensure that we had secured consensus around both cost and risk. That is whybecause of the work that I instigatedthere has been something of a delay.
	I hope I have offered the right hon. and learned Gentleman my strongest assurances that this issue is of the utmost concern to me. I am taking robust action to raise the profile of sprinklers within schools in order to crack down on the problem of arsonand school fire more generallyand ensure that every school remains the safest possible place to be.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock.